The Coming Insurrection

[abbielives!]

a french ultra-leftist text, whose authors were arrested there support website is here: http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/


From whatever angle you approach it, the present offers no way out. This is not the least of its virtues. From those who seek hope above all, it tears away every firm ground. Those who claim to have solutions are contradicted almost immediately. Everyone agrees that things can only get worse. “The future has no future” is the wisdom of an age that, for all its appearance of perfect normalcy, has reached the level of consciousness of the first punks.
http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-insurrection/

[DancingLarry]

It's a fascinating piece, I'm starting on my second read of it now.

I've been around the radical left in one form or another for over 30 years, and I have never seen a genuine serious piece of writing produced in that time like "The Coming Insurrection" gain the momentum it has on the left, nor make the way into the mainstream it seems to be starting to do. For that reason alone it seems to me it would behoove revolutionary leftists to deepen their knowledge and understanding of the piece, even those who may disagree with its ideology and praxis. But my reading of it marks it to me as a serious, if necessarily preliminary, effort to grapple with the challenges and contradictions emerging in 21st century globalized capitalism under an increasingly sclerotic and dysfunctional hegemony.

I've been considering opening up a "study group" thread on the tract, maybe this would be a good place to inquire if others would be interested in that?

[YSR]

I disagree there, Larry. I read the text and was impressed not with how deep or rich it is, but rather how generally hollow it is. I think it reads like a marginally decent poem with some political rhetoric thrown about, but it lacks a serious grasp on what exactly it means. This has long been my criticism of the emerging "insurrectionist" line of anarchism, and The Coming Insurrection seems to be extremely indicative of this tendency. It sounds great and pretty, but really it's just a rehash of what Crimethinc was doing 10 years ago: academic theory put into sexy revolutionary poetics. Except with Crimethinc it was post-Situationist theory and with the insurrectionists its post-operaismo and Continental critical theory.

I continue to be amazed at the "hipness" of this text and its U.S. supporters. Every time I meet an insurrectionist, or read their perspectives, I'm inclined to sit them down with my friends who go to my college. My friends are true intellectuals, who write academic versions of the exact same kind of texts that the insurrectionists do. Furthermore, they share a strong tendency towards substitutionism. Where my friends avoid struggle in favor of academia and "learning," the insurrectionists fetishize a coming insurrection.

[Pogue]

YSR is right, these sorts of texts are all about poetry with little solid content, which is a major issue with anarchism today.

[nuisance]

I'll be up for a study group on it. Hopefully that will get me to read it, as I've been meaning to for awhile.

[Pogue]

I'll be up for a study group on it. Hopefully that will get me to read it, as I've been meaning to for awhile.

Slacker :cool:

[tout niquer]

YSR, did you read this book? What especially did you not feel had content? Beyond theory, do you feel nothing when you read poetry, or could this be the content? To say simply that it Isn't saying anything is a sloppy weak way of critiquing it (and leaves you sounding rather hollow as well).

There is a lot that it is saying, maybe you should read it again. It's not too hard.

As a side note, this text could actually not be considered a leftist text, in that it argues for an antagonistic oppositional relationship with the organized left (organization, ideology, state, etc).

[Steve_j]

I downloaded this but havent got around to reding it yet, but I just bumped into the fox propaganda report yesterday..... it has now moved it from the middle of pile to the to next in line.

[DancingLarry]

Thanks for all the responses, sounds like enough interest to start a study group. I'll start putting together an introductory post and have it up in a couple days. I'll post a notice in this thread when I have it up.

In particular to YSR. Now, as for myself, I don't know much about all this academic stuff you're talking about, being 53 years old and with my highest education being an AS in accounting from a community college. Just a couple of thoughts though. I don't know that "insurrectionist" anarchism is my ideological preference either. I see you're an IWW member, although I'm not terribly sectarian or dogmatic my basic ideological outlook is probably closer to yours than to the authors. I've identified most strongly with anarcho-syndicalism for several decades now. Nevertheless, the kind of phenomenon that's growing up around "The Coming Insurrection" doesn't happen without some concrete social basis. After all, there are probably dozens, if not hundreds, of such tracts published every year, of various ideological stripes, and not one of them in the last 30 years has gained the sort of traction this one has. There has to be a reason for that. Why this one? Why now?

As to a study group, and YSR I hope you'll consider participating. My idea of a real study group involves serious skeptics and critics as well as supporters and the simply interested. What I mean by serious What I mean by serious is those willing to take the time move beyond general or ideological dismissal and actually engage critically with the substance of the text in full. I certainly don't agree with everything in the work, and I'd be surprised if a serious critic would disagree with everything in it. But a range of perspectives would lead to the most lively and valuable study group, at least to my way of thinking.

[nuisance]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh9nKTnRQEI

[Eastside Revolt]

The coming insurrection is kind of like a cross between "the communist manifesto", and "fight club". :tongue_smilie:

But seriously, TCI as well as most "insurrectionist theory", as it's being described, bring important concepts in my opinion. Their imporance lies in the fundamental need for uncontrolable forms of organization, that due to there structure (or lack thereof) bare no risk of being co-opted.

[StalinFanboy]

I disagree there, Larry. I read the text and was impressed not with how deep or rich it is, but rather how generally hollow it is. I think it reads like a marginally decent poem with some political rhetoric thrown about, but it lacks a serious grasp on what exactly it means. This has long been my criticism of the emerging "insurrectionist" line of anarchism, and The Coming Insurrection seems to be extremely indicative of this tendency. It sounds great and pretty, but really it's just a rehash of what Crimethinc was doing 10 years ago: academic theory put into sexy revolutionary poetics. Except with Crimethinc it was post-Situationist theory and with the insurrectionists its post-operaismo and Continental critical theory.

I continue to be amazed at the "hipness" of this text and its U.S. supporters. Every time I meet an insurrectionist, or read their perspectives, I'm inclined to sit them down with my friends who go to my college. My friends are true intellectuals, who write academic versions of the exact same kind of texts that the insurrectionists do. Furthermore, they share a strong tendency towards substitutionism. Where my friends avoid struggle in favor of academia and "learning," the insurrectionists fetishize a coming insurrection.
What exactly do you disagree with insurrectionism on? The main premise behind the insurrectionary texts coming out is the idea of communizing our neighborhoods and communities, while creating conflict with power. Surely that's something that all anarchists would like.

[Agrippa]

I read the text and was impressed not with how deep or rich it is, but rather how generally hollow it is.

What is hollow about The Coming Insurrection? You have failed to raise any legitimate criticism of the books premises, therefore I'd say that it's in fact your criticism thatis hollow


I think it reads like a marginally decent poem with some political rhetoric thrown about

So? Is poetry less legitimate than political rhetoric? I'd say The Coming Insurrection is more aphorism than poetry. I think it's a good thing that the IC cares about making their writing interesting and enjoyable to read. Who would rather read, for example, Negri's Empire?


but it lacks a serious grasp on what exactly it means.

On what basis do you believe the author[s] of the text lack "a serious grasp" on the ideas expressed? It's obvious the author takes the ideas very seriously, and has researched them quite extensively.


This has long been my criticism of the emerging "insurrectionist" line of anarchism, and The Coming Insurrection seems to be extremely indicative of this tendency. It sounds great and pretty, but really it's just a rehash of what Crimethinc was doing 10 years ago:

No, it's not. It's definitely not. Compare the message of The Coming Insurrection (which focuses on developing tight-knit, communal power) to the message of Days of War, Nights of Love (which glorifies pranksterism, hedonism, travelerism, etc.)


academic theory put into sexy revolutionary poetics.

Is there something wrong with "academic theory"? Or is there something wrong with "poetics"? Or both? Would you rather revolutionary propaganda be neither academic nor poetic?


Except with Crimethinc it was post-Situationist theory and with the insurrectionists its post-operaismo and Continental critical theory.

The IC is also heavily indebted to the work of post-Situtionists such as Debord, which they have syncretized brilliantly with their other intellectual influences. This is something that cannot be said for the superficially similar ecclecticism of Crimethinc.


I continue to be amazed at the "hipness" of this text and its U.S. supporters.

I continue to be irritated at how anarcho-hipsters in the US have misappropriated, misrepresented, and misinterpreted by the text, and also the stodginess of its knee-jerk Old Left platformist/syndicalist detractors, which is ultimately rooted in a desire to be totally socially irrelevant.


Every time I meet an insurrectionist, or read their perspectives, I'm inclined to sit them down with my friends who go to my college. My friends are true intellectuals, who write academic versions of the exact same kind of texts that the insurrectionists do. Furthermore, they share a strong tendency towards substitutionism. Where my friends avoid struggle in favor of academia and "learning," the insurrectionists fetishize a coming insurrection.

How is "fetishiz[ing] a coming insurrection" (a.k.a. actually organizing to fight capitalism in a way that makes actual tactical and strategic sense) in any way analgous to "avoid[ing] struggle"? You're basically saying: "these guys who are actually mobilizing against capitalism are just like my friends who do absolutely nothing to mobilize against capitalism".

[FreeFocus]

What exactly do you disagree with insurrectionism on? The main premise behind the insurrectionary texts coming out is the idea of communizing our neighborhoods and communities, while creating conflict with power. Surely that's something that all anarchists would like.

This.

I still have to read the text, there's a lot of hype and talk surrounding it, but there are some ideas in insurrectionist anarchism that have influenced me.

[abbielives!]

some thoughts:
it is more ultra-left communist than anarchist.
that it is well written is not a good critique.




the kind of phenomenon that's growing up around "The Coming Insurrection" doesn't happen without some concrete social basis. After all, there are probably dozens, if not hundreds, of such tracts published every year, of various ideological stripes, and not one of them in the last 30 years has gained the sort of traction this one has. There has to be a reason for that. Why this one? Why now?


an astute comment, I would say that it's authors being arrested for writing it helped spread it.
also it is not weighed down by 19th century rhetoric.
it also tackles modern problems like the environment.
all of this and the poetic style help it I think.

I would also like to point out that we are liable to be unsatisfied with any text that we don't write ourselves.

finally it's true that many of us may find it's ideas around organization unsatisfying, but in my opinion the only way to effectively put these ideas to rest is through a living example of our effectiveness.

[h9socialist]

Comrades --

We on the Left have been forecasting "the final conflict" for about 160 years now. Just because capitalism grows ever more dysfunctional doesn't mean we on the Left have our act together. The concept of a "coming insurrection" rings with biblical echoes!

Of course, I will admit that I come from the socialist wing of the Left. In the U.S. that generally means groups like the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, DSA and CCDS. So I'm much more used to less apocalyptic strategies. At age 55 I'm likely a skeptic on most notions of "coming insurrections." However, I must say that the 21st Century looks ripe for complete social malaise under capitalism. My main concern is that there be a socialist Left that can successfully confront capitalist nihilism.

[nuisance]

Comrades --

We on the Left have been forecasting "the final conflict" for about 160 years now. Just because capitalism grows ever more dysfunctional doesn't mean we on the Left have our act together. The concept of a "coming insurrection" rings with biblical echoes!

Of course, I will admit that I come from the socialist wing of the Left. In the U.S. that generally means groups like the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, DSA and CCDS. So I'm much more used to less apocalyptic strategies. At age 55 I'm likely a skeptic on most notions of "coming insurrections." However, I must say that the 21st Century looks ripe for complete social malaise under capitalism. My main concern is that there be a socialist Left that can successfully confront capitalist nihilism.
Have you read any of the text, further than the title?

[YSR]

There are entirely too many folks in this thread responding to me for me to get back to each one of you, but in brief:

I think poetry is great, and revolutionary poetry has particularly moved me (the work of Franklin and Penelope Rosemont stands as one of the reasons that I find the revolutionary movement so compelling, besides the obvious material things) but theory and poetry are not necessarily the same.

I think TCI is interesting, but I can't see exactly what new things it brings to the table. Again, this is my critique of insurrectionism generally.


The main premise behind the insurrectionary texts coming out is the idea of communizing our neighborhoods and communities, while creating conflict with power. Surely that's something that all anarchists would like.

Indeed, and I guess I don't understand what exactly is new or different about all this stuff when it's dressed up in fancy language and the mystique of violence. Who is this stuff targeted to? The general public or anarchists? Don't we think that we've got enough propaganda groups as is? I think the task that lays before anarchists today is organizing ourselves and others, not necessarily building more propaganda groups. What do insurructionists bring to the table in this way?

I've heard a lot about the model of "crews." It seems like a good idea, but how are they different from affinity groups?

Anyway, gotta run to work.

[nuisance]

I think TCI is interesting, but I can't see exactly what new things it brings to the table. Again, this is my critique of insurrectionism generally.



Indeed, and I guess I don't understand what exactly is new or different about all this stuff when it's dressed up in fancy language and the mystique of violence. Who is this stuff targeted to? The general public or anarchists? Don't we think that we've got enough propaganda groups as is? I think the task that lays before anarchists today is organizing ourselves and others, not necessarily building more propaganda groups. What do insurructionists bring to the table in this way?

I've heard a lot about the model of "crews." It seems like a good idea, but how are they different from affinity groups?

Anyway, gotta run to work.
I think this is ideal for the creation of a seperate thread dedicated to insurrectionism, this is something i'd be interested with- for example I don't see how the critique of formal organisation (federations et al) and for the construction of affinity groups, cannot be reconciled together. Brcause from my experience, smaller affinity groups naturally develop out of the larger local groups of a federation. Why can't both be combined with eachother, if there's no ideological conflicts with the A&Ps of the federal organising?

[YSR]

Sorry I haven't provided strong rebuttals here folks, I've been rather busy. I came across this rather stirring critique which I think sorta demolishes the book, as well as exposes a lot of the bullshit coming from the insurrectionist camp as just that.

http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20090726161656635

Check it out.

[Enragé]

shit critique, the guy either didnt read it or didnt understand it (which isnt weird cuz the language is fucked - tho i like it)

e.g
"Still, they offer more rationale for their decision, "Not making ourselves visible, but instead turning the anonymity to which we've been relegated to our advantage, and through conspiracy, nocturnal or faceless actions, creating an invulnerable position of attack." (Pg. 75) The authors don't seem to understand that even from their own perspective their anonymity can work against them. For example, let's say that the authors needed some form of solidarity because they were in legal trouble. Assuming anyone would be willing enough to look beyond their posturing to offer them solidarity, how could anyone help without knowing who to help? And more, without having any responsibility for their own identity it would be easy for any others to act maliciously in their name against them or others but obviously damaging them. It seems they have equally positioned themselves to be vulnerable."

The idea is that you create communes, anything from 3 to 5 to 20 to a thousand (by association between smaller ones), there you get the solidarity you need, thats the way you're supposed to build it.

At least thats what i made of it. It's a radical book, and i think well-written. I should read it a second time. As somebody else noted, TCI delivers useful concepts.

[Agrippa]

and the mystique of violence

No offense, but have you even read the text?


Take up arms. Do everything possible to make their use unnecessary. Against the army, the only victory is political.

There is no such thing as a peaceful insurrection. Weapons are necessary: it’s a question of doing everything possible to make using them unnecessary. An insurrection is more about taking up arms and maintaining an “armed presence” than it is about armed struggle. We need to distinguish clearly between being armed and the use of arms. Weapons are a constant in revolutionary situations, but their use is infrequent and rarely decisive at key turning points: August 10th 1792, March 18th 1871, October 1917. When power is in the gutter, it’s enough to walk over it.

Because of the distance that separates us from them, weapons have taken on a kind of double character of fascination and disgust that can be overcome only by handling them. An authentic pacifism cannot mean refusing weapons, but only refusing to use them. Pacifism without being able to fire a shot is nothing but the theoretical formulation of impotence. Such a priori pacifism is a kind of preventive disarmament, a pure police operation. In reality, the question of pacifism is serious only for those who have the ability to open fire. In this case, pacifism becomes a sign of power, since it’s only in an extreme position of strength that we are freed from the need to fire.


From a strategic point of view, indirect, asymmetrical action seems the most effective kind, the one best suited to our time: you don’t attack an occupying army frontally. That said, the prospect of Iraq-style urban guerilla warfare, dragging on with no possibility of taking the offensive, is more to be feared than to be desired. The militarization of civil war is the defeat of insurrection. The Reds had their victory in 1921, but the Russian Revolution was already lost. [emp. added]


It seems like a good idea, but how are they different from affinity groups?

An affinity group is just a random group of friends who decide to do some sort of political action together. A commune, in the Coming Insurrection sense, is a group of people who rely on each other to survive, a social unit "that will displace the institutions of society: family, school, union, sports club, etc." Also, "communes [do] not define themselves – as collectives tend to do – by what’s inside and what’s outside them, but by the density of the ties at their core. Not by their membership, but by the spirit that animates them."


I came across this rather stirring critique which I think sorta demolishes the book

Are you kidding? That review is terrible. For example, it sincerely claims that the authors are racist and sexist for writing the text anonymously and advocating general anonymity. In fact, it seems like the review-writer quickly flipped through the book, and didn't understand two thirds of it. The whole review is obviously just a knee-jerk reaction to the Coming Insurrection's criticism of inefficient modes of political activity, which the review-writer likely clings to for emotional rather than tactical reasons. Then again, par for the course for the reformist, anti-Semitic Z Magazine.

[Steve_j]

Id be very interested in a study group as Dancing Larry suggested. I still havent picked it up yet, but a study group could help get my ass into gear :)

[Pogue]

it looks sound but i cant read things on a computer i dont like it, so i might buy it

[StalinFanboy]

it looks sound but i cant read things on a computer i dont like it, so i might buy it
Or if you have access to a printer, you can print up a pdf version.

[StalinFanboy]

I think TCI is interesting, but I can't see exactly what new things it brings to the table. Again, this is my critique of insurrectionism generally. It doesn't bring anything new. Insurrectionism has been around for a long time (Malatesta), but the point is that modern anarchism has lost its insurrectionism. At least that's the way I see it. Forgive the often used metaphor, but we need a movement with teeth.




Indeed, and I guess I don't understand what exactly is new or different about all this stuff when it's dressed up in fancy language and the mystique of violence. Who is this stuff targeted to? The general public or anarchists? Don't we think that we've got enough propaganda groups as is? I think the task that lays before anarchists today is organizing ourselves and others, not necessarily building more propaganda groups. What do insurructionists bring to the table in this way? I think it targets both anarchists and non-anarchists alike. Putting aside the fancy language that a lot of modern insurrectionary texts are using, I think a lot of them bring forth ideas that a lot of people can identify with. I think there are a LOT of people who are extremely unhappy with the current way of life, but have no way of articulating this.


I've heard a lot about the model of "crews." It seems like a good idea, but how are they different from affinity groups?

Anyway, gotta run to work.It's a permanent affinity group. We naturally move in "crews." We all have our group of close friends that we have strong relationships with, and more often than not, people are going to be attracted to the group of people who are hanging and using regular language, rather than an formal and cold party. There have been several examples of new people showing up at monthly Modesto Anarcho meetings and feeling extremely welcome.

[YSR]

Hold up, I really wanna defend this critique. I'll admit that what it does is basically take quotes and remove them from their context and really look at them. Now, to some, that makes it look like the author doesn't understand the text or doesn't care too. I'd be lying if I said that I totally understand it. As the author points out, a lot of the text is unintelligible or can have multiple, contradictory meanings. But what the author does generally, as I see it, is he removes these quotes from their context and forces you to look at them. Looking at them, they actually seem quite ridiculous. That's what I think is great about the critique, not necessarily the critique itself but its approach.

One of the things that I find most off-putting about TCI is what I see as its pretentious style. But as I read it initially (which yes, I did) I kept finding myself buying into the style. It's kind of hard to not get swept along. The authors seem to make so much sense when you read along. Their rejection of everything, including what we would conventionally consider anarchism and communism, sort of gets one pumped up. The style is infectious, it's got this kind of swagger that indicates that it knows what is right and that any other approach is doomed to reformism.

But breaking down that style and looking instead for the meaning is what the author of that critique does, and I think in doing that, we really find the flaws in the piece.

Agrippa, fair enough about the point on violence. Of all the insurrectionist texts I've read, TCI seems to discourage armed violence the most explicitly. But it also encourages this confusing matter of the invisible and the visible, favoring the latter. I understand the idea of invisibility as a way of connecting people (although I think it's mistaken) but I can't help but get a feeling that invisibility, particularly in the anarchist millieu, is often simply another name for clandestinity. Similiar to how "diversity of tactics" often translates as militancy. It's not their words necessarily, but how their ideas function in the real world and out of the theoretical that troubles me. Maybe this isn't the same problem in the French movement, but here in the States, I hear invisibility and I think "what does this accomplish? more smashy-smashy doesn't change anything."

Further, as to your statement that the reviewer doesn't understand the text, I find that unlikely. The first seven parts are just a recapitulation of really basic anarchist and communist theory that anyone who's been paying attention since the 70s should already get.

To wit:
1. Capitalism distorts our identites and turns subjects into objects (Marx)
2. Capitalism distorts the way we think and shapes our desires (Frankfurt School)
3. Work disciplines us and forms the basis of life in capitalism (Italian operaismo)
4. Classical distinctions between forms of society and instruments of control are quickly evolving into more flattened forms (Lots of dudes, even bourgeois theorists)
5. Reformism is bourgeois (Everybody since the 2nd International)
6. Bourgois environmentalism is being used to control us (Ecosocialism
7. Some random stuff and a rather pithy critique of post-modernism (Anarchists?)

It's only the end section that really gets people worked up. All this unqualified and poorly explained stuff about communes and never working with organizations.

Some of my favorite bits:

...a multiplicity of communes that will displace the institutions of society: family, school, union, sports club, etc. Communes that aren’t afraid, beyond their specifically political activities, to organize themselves for the material and moral survival of each of their members and of all those around them who remain adrift. Communes that would not define themselves – as collectives tend to do – by what’s inside and what’s outside them, but by the density of the ties at their core. Not by their membership, but by the spirit that animates them.

First off, does anyone know what "density of ties at their core" even means? How well people get along? What the hell does that have to do with living?

Note the two sections I bolded. If you take them and look at them, aren't they completely contradictory? The first suggests that the "commune" will replace existing institutions, the second that the commune will, unlike institutions, be unable or unwilling to define itself. I find this one of the most frustrating sections of the piece, because the authors place so much value on the commune (after all, it's how they suggest that we reorganize society!) but have such piss-poor definitions of it.

And then there's of course the critique of organizations and organizing, which is the fundamental conceit (as I understand it? BringIt, correct me if I'm wrong) of insurrectionism. I don't have time to argue this one out here, but let me simply note that it's incredibly easy to trash the work of people who are organizing by putting forward a theory that says don't organize. It's rather simple and if I was smarter I'd be able to figure out what the logical fallacy is in there, but I can't get it off-hand. Either way, I think it's a cheap theoretical trick to proclaim that all organizing is counter-productive, because it justifies (and this may not be true for each and every one of you IAists, but I've certainly encountered this attitude) not organizing or not organizing anything beyond a group of friends, as BringIt defines a crew. Well damn, I already did that. Now what? How about connecting them to other crews of friends so we can make a revolution? And if we do that without any type of permenant organization, well, I've been in that situation before and it seems to frequently (though perhaps not always) devolve into irrelevance or informal domination. Organization is not a cure-all, clearly, but a good organization is better than both a bad organization and no organization.

[bcbm]

I don't feel like saying a lot right now. I'm just reading TCI for the first time and I felt that the review/critique linked earlier is probably one of the worst critiques of anything I've ever seen. It distorts almost every quotation it uses and takes it to some absurd idea that has absolutely no connection to the text. While some of the language can be confusing, I still don't find any of the quotes too ridiculous or confusing.

You do the same with the quote you use YSR. They're not saying that the commune will have no definition, but will be defined by relationships, or "how well people get along." If you don't understand what that has to do with living, I would suggest looking at the Tarnac 9 and the response from the community of Tarnac then look at, say, the case of the RNC 8? What they're proposing is quite simple, really. The party should be our lives, the circles we move in (ever expanding), etc and not an abstract located outside of our day to day lives. They're advocating the complete communilization of our lives, more or less.

Don't take this as an endorsement, per se but just an explanation of what seems to be some common misunderstandings. I'll also say that I stayed with some people in France who were expanding on this idea and they impressed me a great deal.

So much for not saying a lot.

[Asoka89]

I've READ the common insurrection. I'll comment on it after work but for now let me recommend another book

http://radicalebooks.blogspot.com/2009/07/karl-kautsky-road-to-power-100-years-on.html

Maybe if leftists thought about regroupment, reorganization (on democratic, open lines) and did the hard work now someday we could talk about a coming "revolution"

[YSR]

BCBM, I don't know the situation in Tarnac, but I do know it pretty well here as regards the RNC8. And I think that what's confusing is the difference between personal action (based on affinity, friendship, etc) which is what this piece and lots of insurrectionist thought (see Modesto Anarcho's stuff on crews) seems to be advocating we center our work on, and political action. I can think of very few people who actually have power in the community here who support the RNC8 because they have personal ties. Quite the opposite, the support campaign for the RNC8 has been, consciously or not, incredibly political. The defendants and their support teams have developed a strategy that involves bringing people together in agreement for a political point and using political pressure tactics to defend the RNC8. These things seem to be exactly the kind of tactics that TCI advocates throwing out the window.

But as someone who is familiar with this case (I even lived with some of them for a bit), if the RNC8 were defending themselves using the "communalization" of everyday life as their main networking strategy, they would be screwed. It would just be some punks who have no connections who backed them up. What makes this particular campaign successful, despite the millieu from which it originates, is that they pursued political goals and political strategies. I think this is a pretty good example of exactly why the thinking behind TCI is messed up. It is precisely this political work that anarchists and communists must throw ourselves into if we're serious about revolution. If we're serious about getting our ideas circulating in the class, becoming invisible and forming small struggle groups based on affinity is the wrong way. We must pose a political threat to capitalism, not retreat from the battlefield.

[anticap]

I read it a while back and got something out of it (such as the stuff Agrippa quoted above, regarding declarations of pacifism by unarmed activists, which is rather like declaring yourself a supporter of capitalism when you don't really have a choice whether or not to participate in it).

And I recently read that review and got something out of it, too (such as the need to take seriously the risks of alienating people and becoming detached from their everyday reality, by retreating up one's own backside).

I found both to be rather dumb at times as well. No point raising hackles by elaborating there; I'm already nervous enough about what reactions I might have stirred up among those who can't tolerate the slightest criticism -- and that's what's really dumb: the (predictable) squabbling they've elicited.

There's wisdom almost everywhere you look. The ones who frighten me are those who can't see that.

As to the language, while I appreciate the value of stirring prose, not just aesthetically but also for its power to inspire people to act, I do tire of it easily and find myself wishing for the "Cliff's Notes" version of most things I read. Not because I don't want the full picture, but because I do: much of the flowery rhetoric we read is discarded while we dream, with the salient points filed away as knowledge; I tend to think that if the pretty prose isn't integral to the experience, then it's probably best to cut to the chase. In this case, I think TCI could be boiled down to almost nothing -- and it should be, so that people can more easily determine just what exactly it contains that is of value, if anything (which would be a matter of opinion). That might be a useful project for your study group: produce a proper summary (perhaps even just a few bullet points, if that's how little meat there turns out to be) and offer it to the activist community.

[bcbm]

BCBM, I don't know the situation in Tarnac . . . if the RNC8 were defending themselves using the "communalization" of everyday life as their main networking strategy, they would be screwed. It would just be some punks who have no connections who backed them up.

If you don't know the situation, just say so and leave it at that. I'm also familiar with the RNC 8 case (why do you think I brought it up?), having been quite close with a number of the defendants and with other RNC felony cases, etc. But you know this already so let's move on.

My point in bringing up Tarnac was that the entire community came out behind them, largely because of their place within the community. Tarnac is a small, rural town in France that, as I understand, was more or less what you would imagine that to be in this day in age. Some of those who are now the Tarnac 9 moved there and began building close ties with the community, staging community events, opening a market, etc and really building, ahem, the foundations for communilization, which they were likely already enacting among their own group.

And of course the Tarnac 9 have their own support committees as well, that probably operate similarly to CRASS and other intiatives pursued in the RNC cases. I think you completely miss the point of what TCI is saying in suggesting that they oppose this sort of work; rather, I think you're misconstruing the rejection of most traditional left projects as a complete rejection of the political climate we live in. I think what TCI proposes is very much political work.

This, for instance,


becoming invisible and forming small struggle groups based on affinity is the wrong way. We must pose a political threat to capitalism, not retreat from the battlefield.

has absolutely no relation to what TCI proposes. It does not propose "small struggle groups" but rather the expansion of existing communes on to ever more numerous fronts. The repeated use of examples like the Paris Commune and the banliue riots, as well as the mention of the insurrection in Algeria in 2001, make this pretty clear. They do not propose to retreat from the battlefield, but to actually treat the battlefield as such.

[Old Man Diogenes]

hh9nKTnRQEI

That has got to be the most reactionary, fear-mongering piece of news I have ever seen. He sounds like a right-wing preacher, talking about the wrong of armed insurrections. HELLO! Two words: Middle East. Capitalism is failing, but people aren't turning to anti-capitalists through disillusionent they're turning to them because they've seen the capitalism system to be harsh and full of inequality. Many are prepared to end it once and for all, they are not prepared to let capitalism heal and start the destructive process all over again. I do not condone the use of arms and violence but I am sure the people will combat the violence inflicted by the State and authority with violence by arming themselves. Even the Founding Fathers of America supported the arming of citzens, for example Thomas Jefferson, "Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."

[What Would Durruti Do?]

That has got to be the most reactionary, fear-mongering piece of news I have ever seen. He sounds like a right-wing preacher, talking about the wrong of armed insurrections. HELLO! Two words: Middle East. Capitalism is failing, but people aren't turning to anti-capitalists through disillusionent they're turning to them because they've seen the capitalism system to be harsh and full of inequality. Many are prepared to end it once and for all, they are not prepared to let capitalism heal and start the destructive process all over again. I do not condone the use of arms and violence but I am sure the people will combat the violence inflicted by the State and authority with violence by arming themselves. Even the Founding Fathers of America supported the arming of citzens, for example Thomas Jefferson, "Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."

Speaking of the Founding Fathers, the best part of that video is when he makes a comparison to his beloved American heroes and has to weasel his way out of it by saying to be like Ghandi and MLK.

[Dowshy]

I've only skimmed through TCI, so I can't make a totally informed assessment. But for all the scandal and sensationalism surrounding it from what I can tell it seems to be simply a new variety of elitist mass movement substitutionism. And I couldn't help but involuntarily roll my eyes at the esoteric and pretentious language used.

While some people here don't like the Znet critique (maybe rightly so), the comment section on Znet's site has some great discussion/debate on TCI, particularly the back and forth between Joshua Sperber and Steve D'Arcy. Y'all should check it out.

[nikolaou]

lets bust em out.

[Agrippa]

BCBM, I don't know the situation in Tarnac, but I do know it pretty well here as regards the RNC8. And I think that what's confusing is the difference between personal action (based on affinity, friendship, etc) which is what this piece and lots of insurrectionist thought (see Modesto Anarcho's stuff on crews) seems to be advocating we center our work on, and political action. I can think of very few people who actually have power in the community here who support the RNC8 because they have personal ties. Quite the opposite, the support campaign for the RNC8 has been, consciously or not, incredibly political. The defendants and their support teams have developed a strategy that involves bringing people together in agreement for a political point and using political pressure tactics to defend the RNC8. These things seem to be exactly the kind of tactics that TCI advocates throwing out the window.

But as someone who is familiar with this case (I even lived with some of them for a bit), if the RNC8 were defending themselves using the "communalization" of everyday life as their main networking strategy, they would be screwed. It would just be some punks who have no connections who backed them up. What makes this particular campaign successful, despite the millieu from which it originates, is that they pursued political goals and political strategies. I think this is a pretty good example of exactly why the thinking behind TCI is messed up. It is precisely this political work that anarchists and communists must throw ourselves into if we're serious about revolution. If we're serious about getting our ideas circulating in the class, becoming invisible and forming small struggle groups based on affinity is the wrong way. We must pose a political threat to capitalism, not retreat from the battlefield.

First off, you can't just say "I'm not familiar with the situation in France, therefore I'm going to apply my perspective on some random, unrelated situation in the US that, from my uninformed perspective, is vaguely similar"

You say the Invisible Committee is "throwing [community outreach for political prisoner legal support] out the window", something none of the IC texts, nor any of the Tarnac 9 support work, supports. The only proof you give of this is "Modesto Anarcho's stuff on crews". The Invisible Committee is not Modesto Anarcho, their positions are not the same, they are not the same social movements. What you're using is a strawman argument.

I think it's safe to say that the grass-roots legal support for the Tarnac 9 was more extensive than that of the RNC8. Furthermore, it's worth proposing whether or not the RNC8 would have even been arrested if the RNC Welcoming Committee had used sounder tactics, such as those proposed by the Invisible Committee. I say this not to insult the RNC8 or their supporters, but to examine the situation truthfully.

[Smash DEM BMP]

Is that your theory

[La Comédie Noire]

I love how he makes it seem as though the earth is about to fucking explode. Seriously, he's worried about the JCP? An organization, which from all indications, is a lukewarm social democratic party.

And towards the end as a final fuck you, he admits he hasn't even read it yet. I wish I had hordes of unpaid interns and competent yet uncamera friendly journalists to do all my research for me. The book doesn't even look that big, anybody with a 12th grade reading level could probably finish it in one sitting.

I'm going to go read it right now, just to prove I'm smarter than one of Fox News' leading demagogues.