At Daggers Drawn with the Existent, its Defenders and its False Critics

[Widerstand]

Anybody had the pleasure of reading this? (if not you can do so here: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Anonymous__At_Daggers_Drawn_with_the_Existent__its _Defenders_and_its_False_Critics.html)

Apparently it's pretty old, from what I know, but it's only recently been translated to German, which lead to it being available in Infoshops (which are the only place I ever get in touch with insurrectionist stuff).

So yeah, I'm somewhat confused. The position they express is some sort of Situationist, Insurrectionist, Autonomist, Individualist (I raged when they cited Stirner), Anti-Dialectic (completely made up for the Stirner quote) mishmash proclaiming the need for insurrection and, if I read the text right, a plurality of tactics, dismissal of picking and sticking to a certain type of tactic by principle. Or something. Some if it also reminded a bit of Left Communism, for example the part about organizations who try to remain and get isolated from conflict or something similar (reminiscent of the ICC's position on unions for example).

Any thoughts?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I like their writings. And similar writers who write along the lines of Alfredo Bonanno and neo-insurrectionary currents, although I certainly don't agree with everything that A.B. stands for (despite having a large amount of respect for him as an anarchist militant).


(I raged when they cited Stirner)

I like Stirner.

[StalinFanboy]

I like their writings. And similar writers who write along the lines of Alfredo Bonanno and neo-insurrectionary currents, although I certainly don't agree with everything that A.B. stands for (despite having a large amount of respect for him as an anarchist militant).



I like Stirner.

Why


Out of curiosity

[bcbm]

umm let me dig out my copy and re-read it and i'll get back to you. last time i read it i found it a much different experience than when i first read it, though i enjoyed it both times.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Why


Out of curiosity

Why do I like Stirner, or why do I like ATD?

[Widerstand]

I like Stirner.

but but but but but


umm let me dig out my copy and re-read it and i'll get back to you. last time i read it i found it a much different experience than when i first read it, though i enjoyed it both times.

:O

Btw since I saw there wasn't any insurrectionist group and we need more groups:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=681

[nuisance]

I also enjoy Stirner.
From what I remember I didn't really enjoy ADD to much, complicated language for ideas which have been put forward much more simply by others. That said this has made me wanna re-read it.

[StalinFanboy]

Why do I like Stirner, or why do I like ATD?

Stirner.

At Daggers Drawn is rad for the most part

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Looks like it's full of the sort of a priori dogmatism I have shown is non-sensical here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-philosophical-theories-t148537/index.html).

[Amphictyonis]

Why


Out of curiosity

Stirner has been used by 'anarcho' capitalists but they've warped his position. He was against private property, wage slavery, rent and interest and advocated a 'union of equals'. I don't think his vision could work in an industrial society but most people who are socialists like Stirner for his individualism and some what nihilistic view of the world. He's more of an anti capitalist than Nietzsche and has been used by collectivist anarchists to separate themselves from what they didn't like of Marxism. The question of individuality within socialism has been a topic many writers have tried t tackle, from Jack London to Sartre to Orwell. Stirner advocated a sort of egoist mutual aid society.

[Widerstand]

Looks like it's full of the sort of a priori dogmatism I have shown is non-sensical here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-philosophical-theories-t148537/index.html).

Which part, for example?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

These for example:


On the one hand there is the existent, with its habits and certainties. And of certainty, that social poison, one can die.


Take social democracy and bolshevism for example: they clearly both came from the supposition that the masses do not have any revolutionary consciousness, so need to be led.


The exploited have nothing to self-manage but their own negation as such.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Stirner.

At Daggers Drawn is rad for the most part

I like him because he was a firm individualist who wasn't also a total reactionary, which is somewhat rare. He was involved in some progressive-type projects during his time, like helping set up a cooperative, and he also said some positive things about labor/proles (one quote in particular, that unfortunately I can't remember...someone had it as their signature on Anti-State.com, which is a hilarious website btw).

I mean, you can look at something like The Ego And It's Own* and say, "Hmm, I don't know that this fits in well with the communist project", but I think that if everyone had Stirner's mindset, then domination would have ended a while ago. State and capital don't exactly appreciate free-thinking, empowered individuals.

On a side note, I was amused to see that one of the arsonist groups in Greece called itself the "Max Stirner Fighting Cores". :lol:

*Although not all anarchists have a negative view of TEAIO...Rudolf Rocker wrote very supportively of it in Anarcho-Syndicalism. "The work of a conscious and deliberate insurgent" is I believe what he called it.

[StalinFanboy]

I'll have to check him out sometime.


I've stayed away from him up til now because I know some people that basically use egoism as a justification to be shitty people and to not take other people into consideration.

[StalinFanboy]

These for example:

Can you explain how these are a priori? They just sound like simplified, but fancy rhetoric (the ideas are simplified, the wording is fancy).

Also, is it not true that bolshevism stems from a belief that the masses need to be lead? I thought that was the whole point behind that conception of vanguardism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SB:


Can you explain how these are a priori? They just sound like simplified, but fancy rhetoric (the ideas are simplified, the wording is fancy).

Yes, perhaps I was being a little harsh. The word 'existent' rang a few alarm bells though.


Also, is it not true that bolshevism stems from a belief that the masses need to be lead? I thought that was the whole point behind that conception of vanguardism.

It's certainly true of Stalinism and Maoism but not of Trotskyism or Leninism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/

http://johnmolyneux.blogspot.com/2006/11/lihs-lenin-review-of-lars-t-lih-lenin.html

[Widerstand]

SB:



Yes, perhaps I was being a little harsh.

What do you think about these two passages then?


But how do you create a new community starting from anger? Let us put a stop to the conjuring tricks of dialectics. The exploited are not carriers of any positive project, be it even the classless society (which all too closely resembles the productive set up). Capital is their only community. They can only escape by destroying everything that makes them exploited: wages, commodities, roles and hierarchies. Capitalism has not created the conditions of its overcoming in communism—the famous bourgeoisie forging the arms of its own extinction—but of a world of horrors.


The vicious circle is that the more one separates oneself from the exploited, the more one needs to represent an inexistent relationship. Subversion is reduced to one’s own practices, and representation becomes the organisation of an ideological racket—the bureaucratic version of capitalist appropriation. The revolutionary movement then identifies with its ‘most advanced’ expression, which realises its concept. The Hegelian dialectic of totality offers a perfect system for this construction.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Nice rhetorical flourishes, but no dialectician is going to be phased by them.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I feel like it is not an effective piece of propaganda - reading it before I felt an affinity for "insurrectionary anarchism" or whatever, I absolutely hated it.
After reading TCI, and other, "more French", insurrectionary literature, I liked it, coming form a place of sympathetic understandings, but . . .

I think there's a certain bitterness to it, like in a lot of Bonano's writing, that is maybe difficult to relate to outside the context of powerful, institutionalized lefts. It's not that hostility toward their projects isn't warranted, just that it doesn't particularly resonate. Similarly, in the english translation, at least, the rejection of a "positive project" is unclear, or was during my first few reads. Like, are the groups that carry about the tasks of attacking the existent a "positive project"? The logistics/tactics/strategy of insurrection?

That said, I like it now, but only from a place of already sympathizing with it.

[Widerstand]

I feel like it is not an effective piece of propaganda - reading it before I felt an affinity for "insurrectionary anarchism" or whatever, I absolutely hated it.
After reading TCI, and other, "more French", insurrectionary literature, I liked it, coming form a place of sympathetic understandings, but . . .

I think there's a certain bitterness to it, like in a lot of Bonano's writing, that is maybe difficult to relate to outside the context of powerful, institutionalized lefts. It's not that hostility toward their projects isn't warranted, just that it doesn't particularly resonate. Similarly, in the english translation, at least, the rejection of a "positive project" is unclear, or was during my first few reads. Like, are the groups that carry about the tasks of attacking the existent a "positive project"? The logistics/tactics/strategy of insurrection?

That said, I like it now, but only from a place of already sympathizing with it.

I thought the "positive project" bit was quite easy to understand actually. I haven't read much (actually I don't think I've read any) French insurrectionist texts, but I've read a bit of Holloway and other Autonomist stuff. The term "positive" isn't used in a judgmental sense of "good" or "nice", but rather in the sense of "constituting"/"creating"/"utopian". Eg. What "they don't carry a positive project" means is that they don't set out to create something, they aren't struggling because they have some vision they want to achieve or some utopia they want to build. The struggle is a deeply negative one, it seeks to negate and destroy the current status quo.