The coming insurrection- thoughts?

[Lunatic Concept]

What did you guys think of this text? Im sure alot of you have already read it but what are your opinions on it and the predictions it makes?:thumbup1: If anyone hasn't read it, heres a PDF version:
http://tarnac9.noblogs.org/gallery/5188/insurrection_english.pdf

[Quetzal]

What did you guys think of this text? Im sure alot of you have already read it but what are your opinions on it and the predictions it makes?:thumbup1: If anyone hasn't read it, heres a PDF version:
http://tarnac9.noblogs.org/gallery/5188/insurrection_english.pdf

Great writing skills! Although i don't agree with all of it...
I'm starting to translate this to Dutch!

[Omi]

Great writing skills! Although i don't agree with all of it...
I'm starting to translate this to Dutch!

It's already out in Dutch.

I think it's got some great poetry, but hasn't got anything substantial to offer at all.

[blake 3:17]

Yeah, bits of pretty posturing, but essentially stoopid.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Very overrated. I was overall disappointed. Maybe I was expecting too much from all the hype surrouding it. It doesn't say or offer anything new. I could of gone without reading it, which I have almost never said about a book...

[Quetzal]

Very overrated. I was overall disappointed. Maybe I was expecting too much from all the hype surrouding it. It doesn't say or offer anything new. I could of gone without reading it, which I have almost never said about a book...

Maybe you were!

I think it's a good piece to share out to semi-conscious 'friends' or plant seeds to radicalize them these days in Europe.

[StalinFanboy]

I really like The Coming Insurrection. I would suggest that people check out "L'Appel" but the Invisible Committee as well. It's shorter and arguably better.

[Enragé]

brilliant with a stroke of the insane

[¿Que?]

I liked it. the language was not overly complicated nor too simplistic. It connects the personal with the broader political context very well. I know it sounds cliche, but that's its strength I think. It connects.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

:tt1:I LEIK USING THIS BOOK TO BUILD THE PARTY!:tt1:

Which is to say, I appreciate it as a introduction to critiques of the left/capital-P Politics, as an incitement to insurrection that maintains the possibility of a positive project, and . . . uh . . .

[bcbm]

never heard of it doesn't look like anything special though

[Ravachol]

It's already out in Dutch.

I think it's got some great poetry, but hasn't got anything substantial to offer at all.

First of all, I don't think TCI should be read as a text that has something 'substantial to offer'. If we read it through the lense of connected texts, like 'This is not a program' or 'Introduction to Civil war' by Tiqqun or, as Species Being suggest, L'appel, we can see that the whole point is not to provide a rehashed 'What is to be Done'. Instead, the perspective shifts from 'what' to 'How is it to be done', with a less general focus on overal goals or grand strategies as opposed to advocating a certain perspective accompanying all actions, whatever they may be.

If anything, TCI is a piece of beautiful rethoric that should be seen as an attempt to create a caesura with the traditional sphere of capital-P politics.

Tiqqun (despite not being 'behind TCI' or whatever, they're still the primary influence) is heavily influenced by a Foucaultian perception of power, as elaborated upon by Giorgio Agamben (who is a close friend/collaborater of the group) and Eric Hazan (who is the guy behind La Fabrique editions, which published TCI) in this interview (http://anarchistwithoutcontent.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/tiqqun-apocrypha-repost/).

This perspective, rather than seeking for general strategies, identifies only sets of disciplinary practices, practices of 'governementality' and as such claim that there cannot really be a universal 'what is to be done' since these practices are so diffuse throughout the social terrain. Dominance is tailored specifically to dominate a given segment of the social terrain, thus there is no universal practice of resistance to capital-P Power but only a diffuse inter-connected resistance to the practice of power as it manifests itself in it's specific form. So instead of 'what' the question becomes 'how'.

While I don't necissarily agree with everything in it (I rarely do with anything), at the end of the text there's some fair suggestions. I suggest reading complementary texts as suggested here (http://burntbookmobile.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/french-commune-ism-discussion-supplementary-readings/).

There is also a study group (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=530) here on RevLeft regarding the text, which is rather inactive though.

[Omi]

Yeah I already read some Tiqquin and L'Appel.

I think they make a fundamental error in their perception of an insurrection. They give a pretty well written account of their viewing of the modern European society. But they proclaim that this society is some sort of ticking time bomb, which will explode in the near future. They then see the insurrection as some sort of apocalyptic final battle within this explosion and the only way to finally destroy the fundamentals of this society. They then proceed to state that we need to prepare ourselves through the formation of communes (whatever these may be... according to L'insurrection they can be anything from a wildcat strike to a group of friends working clandestine to a collectively run garden.) for this event.
I think this is a rather messianic view on revolution and is a negation of the reality that this system will not simply blow itself up and a lot of work needs to be done to get the tower tumbling.

Secondly, I think the text is trying to appeal to a lot of conflicting ideas at once and is one of the reasons it's fairly popular: It constantly avoids certain theoretical conflicts.
They both advocate that there needs to be some sort of counterpower autonomous of the current society that will replace the institutions of today. But on the other hands it proposes the buildup of clandestine struggle, because the institutions of tommorrow can not be autonomous from the institutions of today and we first have to fully destroy the current institutions. These are 2 conflicting ideas but they choose to ignore this.
Secondly they view the insurrection as some sort of apocalyptical event in the future, but they also write that every existing part of rebellion is already a commune and the sum of communes is the insurrection. If that is so, then the insurrection is not an event in the future but simply a process which needs to escalate, since there is rebellion all over the world right now.

They do not view the insurrection as a break from normality from which to build revolutionairy potential and as a tool in the class struggle, but instead that society already provides us with niches from which to build revolutionairy power and as the insurrection as a moment for these ''communes'' to rise up and destroy everything in it's path. This is fundamentally different from insurrectionist practice.

[Magón]

It's an interesting read to say the least. I mean, all the hype it gets doesn't really do it much justice, but whatever, it's up to the individual person.

[Dimentio]

The problem in the west is: Youths. Or rather the lack of them.

In 2040, about 50% of the population will be above 60 years of age, making a revolution more difficult to achieve.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The problem in the west is: Youths. Or rather the lack of them.

In 2040, about 50% of the population will be above 60 years of age, making a revolution more difficult to achieve.

Or far easier, depending. I mean, it's not a numbers game: think of how easily a small number of violent youth could hold a geriatric Conservative Party congress hostage.

[Omi]

The problem in the west is: Youths. Or rather the lack of them.

In 2040, about 50% of the population will be above 60 years of age, making a revolution more difficult to achieve.

How does this relate to the subject of the thread? Have I missed something?

[Ravachol]

I think they make a fundamental error in their perception of an insurrection. They give a pretty well written account of their viewing of the modern European society. But they proclaim that this society is some sort of ticking time bomb, which will explode in the near future.


While it's understandable people might think they believe this, this is not actually what they say. Though rethorically they may conjure visions of immanent insurrection, what they state is that the collapse isn't coming, it's already here. We're situated right in the middle of permanent collapse with no way out.



Society no longer exists, at least in the sense of a differentiated whole. There is only a tangle of norms and mechanisms through which THEY hold together the scattered tatters of the global biopolitical fabric, through which THEY prevent its violent disintegration. Empire is the administrator of this desolation, the supreme manager of a process of listless implosion.



What we usually refer to as society is, according to them, just a diffuse amelgation of milieus, groups and cliques held together by ever increasing disciplinary practices. As the police commander at Genoa once said, "The police aren't there to put things in order, but to govern disorder"

So, in a sense, they are situating the collapse, the crisis, as the current and permanent state of 21st century Capitalism, the permanent implosion of all social organization in favor of mere discipline holding together groups that can't possibly be unified.




They both advocate that there needs to be some sort of counterpower autonomous of the current society that will replace the institutions of today.


They see this counter-power as emerging from the process of struggle, as most anarchist-communists do I suppose. They do not believe in prefiguration however. The communes aren't tomorrows institutions, they serve as organization forms where communal relations profilerate, allowing us to live communaly and thus struggle towards communism while at the same time these communes provide a simple material base (through shared resources, mutual aid,etc.) from which to wage the struggle.



But on the other hands it proposes the buildup of clandestine struggle, because the institutions of tommorrow can not be autonomous from the institutions of today and we first have to fully destroy the current institutions.


What Tiqqun has always argued is that living and struggeling cannot be divorced. I'll refer to the chapter 'Living & Struggeling' in 'This is not a program' which I quote now and then here on RevLeft.

What they basically say is that revolution isn't a discrete event but a continous process, the process of 'living communism'. Struggle is thus integral to living which furthers struggle, as such both become extension of eachother, forming what Gilles Deleuze terms the 'war machine'.

Practically, this means that our forms of struggle should strengthen our material positions and the communism-to-be, to win terrain. Our forms of life, on the other hand, should open up new terrains of struggle and build embryonic communism where possible.

[Omi]

You see, this is what I meant when I stated that they created a text able to appeal to every tendency within the anti authoritarian far left. They combine different theories which where exclusive to begin with. Every one reads their own preferred model of insurrection into it. This is due to the lack of actual analysis, of actual substance. The thing about the constant state of collapse may be correct but in other parts of the text they argue the opposite.

They do not base their theories on an analysis of the current state of the social war, but on vague sentiments within the ruling classes. They consistently quote from PR companies and politicians to try and find the dominant current of thought in Europe. But I do not really think that we should build our insurrectionist analysis of society upon the dominant currents in the philosophy of the ruling class.

Lets try and put this another way: The writers of this text do not really represent any form of social or revolutionary movement at all. The texts serve as intellectual masturbation and do not propose anything concrete. The texts have no context in the social war and the tendency they represent is only a philosophical one and not based in actual struggles. They don't want to belong to an actual existing movement such as anarchism or communism which alienates them from existing struggles.

[Ravachol]

You see, this is what I meant when I stated that they created a text able to appeal to every tendency within the anti authoritarian far left. They combine different theories which where exclusive to begin with. Every one reads their own preferred model of insurrection into it. This is due to the lack of actual analysis, of actual substance. The thing about the constant state of collapse may be correct but in other parts of the text they argue the opposite.


I don't think this is a bad thing, also, other works by Tiqqun are pretty consistent in their analysis and the (anti-)politics they advocate.



Lets try and put this another way: The writers of this text do not really represent any form of social or revolutionary movement at all. The texts serve as intellectual masturbation and do not propose anything concrete.


How is this the case with L'appel, Introduction to Civil War, How is it to be done or This is not a program? These are just as 'concrete' as, say, At daggers drawn, Barbarians, From riot to insurrection or any other 'casual' Insurrectionary texts.



The texts have no context in the social war and the tendency they represent is only a philosophical one and not based in actual struggles.


This just isn't true. First of all, the 'French Commune-ist milieu'/anarcho-autonomous-whateverists are a continuation of Autonomist politics in France and Italy with the Italian post-operaist Movement of '77 as their main point of reference.



They don't want to belong to an actual existing movement such as anarchism or communism which alienates them from existing struggles.

How so? Both Tiqqun and 'The invisible Comittee' advocate 'living communism and spreading anarchy', they're pretty explicit about what they want.

[Quetzal]

The problem in the west is: Youths. Or rather the lack of them.

In 2040, about 50% of the population will be above 60 years of age, making a revolution more difficult to achieve.


Or far easier, depending. I mean, it's not a numbers game: think of how easily a small number of violent youth could hold a geriatric Conservative Party congress hostage.

But there will also be al lot more young immigrants and refugees. So don't worry, the revolutionairy flame of the youth will stay around. :cool:

[Rusty Shackleford]

read it when i was an anarchist. now im a leninist.

[Omi]

I don't think this is a bad thing, also, other works by Tiqqun are pretty consistent in their analysis and the (anti-)politics they advocate.

Maybe, but still I think the coming insurrection which is the only text i properly read is pretty contradictory on certain points.

How is this the case with L'appel, Introduction to Civil War, How is it to be done or This is not a program? These are just as 'concrete' as, say, At daggers drawn, Barbarians, From riot to insurrection or any other 'casual' Insurrectionairy texts.

This is a problem I have with other 'casual' insurrectionairy texts as well and the fact that there are problems within the overall literature of the actual insurrectionairy milieu doesn't mean that this point can be ignored when critiquing the coming insurrection.

This just isn't true. First of all, the 'French Commune-ist milieu'/anarcho-autonomous-whateverists are a continuation of Autonomist politics in France and Italy with the Italian post-operaist Movement of '77 as their main point of reference.

I didn't say they did not base their views on other tendencys as well. The point is that they are in no way representing the majority of the insurrectionairy milieu in France and elsewhere.

How so? Both Tiqqun and 'The invisible Comittee' advocate 'living communism and spreading anarchy', they're pretty explicit about what they want.

No they are not. This living communism and spreading anarchy takes on the form of mutually exclusive tactics and strategies, and are thus not explicit at all. They ignore certain debates and mutually exclusive ideas. Such as I posted earlier: The difference between building alternative culture and attacking the society from this alternative culture on the one hand and building the alternative culture BY attack. This is fundamentally different and they simple ignore this.

If you want to read a great article about this text I suggest the review of it in the back of the latest A Corps Perdu, they destroyed it. I would recommend this zine for anyone caring about insurrectionairy struggle. They have some great in depth analysis. It's out in Dutch as well.

[Ravachol]

Maybe, but still I think the coming insurrection which is the only text i properly read is pretty contradictory on certain points.


I have to agree but I think it's unfair to discard their whole body of thought because of TCI, which is essentially mainly rethorical.



I didn't say they did not base their views on other tendencys as well. The point is that they are in no way representing the majority of the insurrectionairy milieu in France and elsewhere.


This is most likely true, but what's the deal with that? First of all, they come from a very different angle than most other insurrectionary traditions (which, while originating in the Movement of '77 as well developed in a tradtion far closer to the original propaganda of the deed espoused by late 19th century Individualist Anarchists). Secondly, how is this a bad thing per se?

I'm active as an Anarcho-Syndicalist but my personal views by no means 'represent' Anarcho-Syndicalism, or any other tendency for that matter. I'm not really interested in representing the majority of a given tendency. What Tiqqun essentially did was offer new insights and other pathways for a different kind of insurrectionary thought, which I think is far more refreshening than the almost archaic vision of 'blow shit up, spread disorder' propaganda-of-the-deedism which so often passes for Insurrectionary Anarchism.

I don't agree with everything they say, I think their ontology is often far to idealist and puts such an emphasis on the subjectivities inherent to certain forms-of-life that they end up completely negating the matter of class in favor of revolutionary consciousness in itself. This narrow, Deleuzian focus on 'Desire' ignores the material constitution of class society and while they are correct when they state that when it comes to revolutionary consciousness it is not so much one's class position that matters, but one's attitude towards this position, the will to communism, one might say. They do however ignore that the desire for escaping this society, the desire for communism is born from material reasons which influence our subjectivities and as such their ontology is rather shaky.

But apart from that, a lot of their observations are valid and interesting. TCI is not the best example, it's poetry if nothing else, but their body of work is far broader than that.



No they are not. This living communism and spreading anarchy takes on the form of mutually exclusive tactics and strategies, and are thus not explicit at all.


How do you mean that? How is living communism and spreading anarchy mutually exclusive? If a commune of hundreds robs a bank, a supermarket and distributes the gains or if they expropriate terrain in the form of a squat or collectively occupied factory and use this material advancement to build their own structures, their strategy of attack benefits their mode of living and their mode of living allows them to expand their strategy of attack through the power of the collectivity inherent to the commune.


If you want to read a great article about this text I suggest the review of it in the back of the latest A Corps Perdu, they destroyed it. I would recommend this zine for anyone caring about insurrectionairy struggle. They have some great in depth analysis. It's out in Dutch as well.

I'll check it out, I wanted to buy the latest A Corps Perdu at the last Anarchist bookfair in Utrecht but I was out of money, sadly. I have a copy of the first issue and it's pretty decent I thought.

[bcbm]

They don't want to belong to an actual existing movement such as anarchism or communism

so?

[Omi]

I have to agree but I think it's unfair to discard their whole body of thought because of TCI, which is essentially mainly rethorical.



This is most likely true, but what's the deal with that? First of all, they come from a very different angle than most other insurrectionary traditions (which, while originating in the Movement of '77 as well developed in a tradtion far closer to the original propaganda of the deed espoused by late 19th century Individualist Anarchists). Secondly, how is this a bad thing per se?

It's not. Just try to clarify where i'm coming from, since I'm more sympathetic to other insurrectionairy tendencys and agree with the critique of the Tiqquin style philosophy.

I'm active as an Anarcho-Syndicalist but my personal views by no means 'represent' Anarcho-Syndicalism, or any other tendency for that matter. I'm not really interested in representing the majority of a given tendency. What Tiqqun essentially did was offer new insights and other pathways for a different kind of insurrectionary thought, which I think is far more refreshening than the almost archaic vision of 'blow shit up, spread disorder' propaganda-of-the-deedism which so often passes for Insurrectionary Anarchism.

I don't really agree with this and I think most Insurrectionists don't make use of the propaganda of the deed style tactics. This is far more frequent in those neo-urban guerilla groups such as those in Greece, Italy, Spain and Mexico.

I don't agree with everything they say, I think their ontology is often far to idealist and puts such an emphasis on the subjectivities inherent to certain forms-of-life that they end up completely negating the matter of class in favor of revolutionary consciousness in itself. This narrow, Deleuzian focus on 'Desire' ignores the material constitution of class society and while they are correct when they state that when it comes to revolutionary consciousness it is not so much one's class position that matters, but one's attitude towards this position, the will to communism, one might say. They do however ignore that the desire for escaping this society, the desire for communism is born from material reasons which influence our subjectivities and as such their ontology is rather shaky.

But apart from that, a lot of their observations are valid and interesting. TCI is not the best example, it's poetry if nothing else, but their body of work is far broader than that.

Agreed.

How do you mean that? How is living communism and spreading anarchy mutually exclusive? If a commune of hundreds robs a bank, a supermarket and distributes the gains or if they expropriate terrain in the form of a squat or collectively occupied factory and use this material advancement to build their own structures, their strategy of attack benefits their mode of living and their mode of living allows them to expand their strategy of attack through the power of the collectivity inherent to the commune.

No i did not mean that living communism and creating anarchy is mutually exclusive, but that the forms this can take accoring to TCI are mutually exclusive. A countryside commune isn't going to rob a bank. A communal squat won't start an insurrection. They are able to carry out direct action and maybe some actual attacks and certainly are able to create infrastructure much needed to develop an actual revolutionairy movement. But an insurrection isn't going to take place within or from this infrastructure, but from the working class itself. The visability and centralisation of alternative culture is unable to resist the repression an actual insurrection would invoke. If you get what I mean.



I'll check it out, I wanted to buy the latest A Corps Perdu at the last Anarchist bookfair in Utrecht but I was out of money, sadly. I have a copy of the first issue and it's pretty decent I thought.

The anarchist group in Nijmegen has it in their distribution. You can pick it up there. It's got some great in depth articles about insurrections in Bolivia and Argentine, a real fresh read compared to the truckload of articles about Greece for a change.


so?

Well, I think basing your analysis and theorys in actual struggle kinda helps the credibility along. Theory is nothing without practice, and to discard the entire sphere of actual anarchist and communist networks to base yourself in is rather stupid.

[bcbm]

Well, I think basing your analysis and theorys in actual struggle kinda helps the credibility along. Theory is nothing without practice, and to discard the entire sphere of actual anarchist and communist networks to base yourself in is rather stupid.actual struggle =/= existing anarchist/communist "movements"

also,its clear from their writings they only discarded them after working within them for years and finding them worse than useless. their theory is all about practice, it simply isn't a practice that requires irrelevant milieus of pro-revolutionaries.