Nihilist Communism?

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

What exactly is it? I tried reading the text, and I didn't understand it.

[Ostrinski]

It's a joke tendency, for all practical purposes and intents anyway.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Isn't it an oxymoron?

[l'Enfermé]

It's a hipster joke tendency,

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

It's like everything bad about determinist readings of communization theory, the total giving up on the possibilities of pro-revolutionary subjects as agents within history, etc.
Basically, it's a book length argument for sitting in your mommy's basement, and complaining about how nobody is doing it right.
Fucking gnarbage.

(Also, I don't think calling it a hipster joke tendency is particularly accurate - it's not hip like IEF or Tiqqun, and it's not all that funny or self-reflexively ironic)

[Ravachol]

Its the name of a joke tendency on revleft, taken from a serious a book (http://libcom.org/library/nihilist-communism-monsieur-dupont) by 'Monsieur Dupont'. Dupont is a couple of british writers and former long-time militants, one time members of the AFED and Subversion and former members of the Communication Workers Group (http://libcom.org/tags/communication-workers-group). They participated (to my knowledge) in the struggles of the '80s, the poll tax riots and all that.

Dupont came to develop a critique of 'the militant', 'class consciousness' and the agency of the revolutionary minority similar to the texts 'the impotence of the revolutionary group' (http://www.lettersjournal.org/moss.html) published by 'Sam Moss' in the council-communist journal Living Marxism in 1939, 'Lip and the self-managed counter revolution' (http://libcom.org/library/lip-and-the-self-managed-counter-revolution-negation) by french group Negation and 'On Organisation' (http://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/capcom/on-org.htm) by Jacques Camatte.

The critique presented in the nihcom text is a heavy critique of voluntarism, the impotency of revolutionary minorities and their militants, the idea that endless efforts of 'consciousness raising' do anything at all, etc. I think a lot of the stuff they write is spot on and a good contribution to tearing away the veil of historical grandeur a lot of the leftist sects ascribe to themselves and their empty rituals. On the other hand, the critique in Nihcom is imo way to deterministic, reductionist (re. the 'essential proletariat') and holds little value for me as an individual towards my own self-realization, antagonistic as that is to this world.

One of the two writers went on to write 'Species Being and other stories' (http://ardentpress.com/species-being-and-other-stories/) under the name of Frere Dupont which deepend the concepts worked out in Nihcom but presented a more interesting focus on Marx' concept of 'Species Being' and the notions of social reproduction. A good discussion of that text was presented in the metamute magazine (http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/burdened-absence-billions).

Other interesting texts related to this critique are:

http://libcom.org/library/communication-workers-group-rank-file-critique-subversion

http://libcom.org/library/impotence-councilism-dupont

A discussion with red & black notes on communism as 'the real movement that...':

http://libcom.org/library/real-movement-red-black-notes

http://libcom.org/library/reply-real-movement-monsieur-dupont

http://libcom.org/library/get-over-wall-we-first-have-get-wall-monsieur-dupont

http://libcom.org/library/some-thoughts-monsieur-dupont-monsieur-dubois

Most of their ideas hinge on a firmly anti-humanist rejection of human agency (including that of communism as being a 'real movement') and (at least one of them) root their ideas in revolt as being an anthropogenic reaction, almost an essentialist aspect of our species being.

My advice: there's a lot of interesting stuff in there, esp. their critique regarding revolutionary groups, reproduction, the limits of human agency and the role of the militant but just pick from there what you like without getting depressed :p

[Ravachol]

Also, Devrim here on Revleft used to know at least one of them back in the '80s and was in a group together with them I believe.

[GoddessCleoLover]

And I thought it was a joke. Riddle me this Batman, if they are nihilists have can they ever organize their tendency? Wouldn't any attempt to organize for communism bely their nihilism?:lol:

[Grenzer]

It's a joke tendency really.

Tiqqun is way cooler and poetic. Smash windows, for the revolution!!

[Raúl Duke]

I think being dismissive about 'nihilist communism' would be a mistake...although I wouldn't be surprise if that's the reaction.

While it seems to be viewed as a "joke tendency" within revleft nihilist communism is based on the writings of "monsieur dupont" which some writings present an analysis/critique of the left that I think would be particularly important to address if the left plans on "going anywhere" instead of either repeating history or continue to perpetuate its current status as an activist milleu.

[Comrade #138672]

And I thought it was a joke. Riddle me this Batman, if they are nihilists have can they ever organize their tendency? Wouldn't any attempt to organize for communism bely their nihilism?:lol:Or maybe the Nihilism causes people to do whatever they want to do. Nothing matters anyway, so the consequences of your actions don't matter either. This could be called 'active Nihilism' (I've read about it somewhere).

[Ravachol]

It's a joke tendency really.

Tiqqun is way cooler and poetic. Smash windows, for the revolution!!

Boy, you sure show you know what you're talking about!

Also, instead of speculating as to what the 'nihilism' of the authors might or might not be and what a 'tendency' of it would look like (hint: there isn't one), I'd recommend actually reading the texts. Just a thought.

[l'Enfermé]

^I've read the texts despite finding it extremely painful to do. Complete trash. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, I'm not a sadist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's like everything bad about determinist readings of communization theory, the total giving up on the possibilities of pro-revolutionary subjects as agents within history, etc.
Basically, it's a book length argument for sitting in your mommy's basement, and complaining about how nobody is doing it right.
Fucking gnarbage.

(Also, I don't think calling it a hipster joke tendency is particularly accurate - it's not hip like IEF or Tiqqun, and it's not all that funny or self-reflexively ironic)

NC does not argue in favor of doing nothing, it argues for not having illusions about what you're actually accomplishing with this-or-that isolated activity. I'd also argue that it still allows a pretty big role for pro-revs as agents of history, it's just that this role takes place in a very specific time period of struggle.

In regard to NC, some of their stuff is good. I like the parts about "class consciousness", reading NC was my first introduction to a critique of the concept. But I'm critical of some of the other stuff they say, like when they argue that "knowing you're repressed doesn't end your repression". While technically true, it's argued in the context of workers somehow having significant knowledge of their own repression, when in reality I don't think this is the case. I'm critical of some of their other statements as well, but I don't have the book in front of me and my memory is failing me at the moment.

[Ravachol]

^I've read the texts despite finding it extremely painful to do. Complete trash. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, I'm not a sadist.

Yeah, you sure? 'Cause with such a drive-by oneliner you don't sound very convincing. It also adds much to the discussion in this thread I must say! :rolleyes:

[Devrim]

Also, Devrim here on Revleft used to know at least one of them back in the '80s and was in a group together with them I believe.

Yes, guilty as charged. I knew one of them, and am in fact still (occasionally) in touch with him. We worked together back in the UK Post Office during the 1980s.


Its the name of a joke tendency on revleft, taken from a serious a book (http://libcom.org/library/nihilist-communism-monsieur-dupont) by 'Monsieur Dupont'. Dupont is a couple of british writers and former long-time militants, one time members of the AFED and Subversion and former members of the Communication Workers Group (http://libcom.org/tags/communication-workers-group). They participated (to my knowledge) in the struggles of the '80s, the poll tax riots and all that.

As I said, I only knew one of them, and only one was in Communication Worker. The other guy was a postman too though. The one I know was in the ACF as it was then. I don't know about the other.


^I've read the texts despite finding it extremely painful to do. Complete trash. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, I'm not a sadist.

I only actually read it about a year ago. I didn't find it that heavy going. It is basically a mixture of councilism, workerism, and a polemic against voluntarism.

Devrim

[Raúl Duke]

While I read a bit of it...I found their critiques on "revolutionary consciousness, et.al" a bit too strong. Sure, they have a point to it, I find a lot of leftists find it a big issue and I can see why they're dismissive about it when they tie it in to how exactly leftists "raise consciousness" and the way they frame it (i.e. "you need a vanguard party or a bunch of radicals to agitate, usually through activism, to raise consciousness"). But that's the thing, I think the issue is mostly on how the left conceptualizes the issue and how they deal with it, rather than its existence/non-existence. Although maybe it's a personal prejudice, since I hold that "false consciousness" (as frame by Gramsci, the situationists) is an actual occurring phenomenon.

However, their critiques of activism I mostly agreed with. A lot of activism seems mostly symbolic and "dead-ends." From what I gathered, the nihilist communists make the labor movement (not exactly the unions themselves, mostly just the militancy/militant actions from the working class) the prime thing that leads to revolutions, and while they're ambiguous into what the role of the radical is they suggest that their role becomes more important in revolutionary moments (i.e. the "specific time period of struggle" os cangaceiros mentioned).

Didn't read much of it though, just a bit of it.

[GoddessCleoLover]

False consciousness is a phenomena that leftists in the United States experience on a daily basis. Therefore, it seems like a good idea for American leftists to familiarize themselves with Gramsci's Prison Notebooks or at least read secondary sources that explain the Gramscian concept of cultural hegemony.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Aye proletocrats, I don't fancy myself a Nihilist Communist or especially not an Insurrectionist, but ya'll honestly don't sound like you know what you're talking about. There are some things I don't like about the book Nihilist Communism, but it's basically a good critique of unrealistic optimism and messianic determinism in the revolutionary left.
Also, Insurrectionist Anarchism has actual theory behind it. It's more than poetry about smashing stuff, although that stuff is fun.

[black magick hustla]

i don't think the "doing nothing" statement of the book is meant to be taken literally. its hyperbolic in purpose. the fact that a lot of sects seem to be treehouse societies of nerds and maladjusted, mentally ill people (i include myself in those categories btw) demands a polemic like nihilist communism. you read revleft and other more serious articles in journals and there is always some gigantic asshole that thinks that has figured out why the left is bad etc etc. and that we should do more stuff cuz thats why the left is not taken seriously and thats how we should build the party, like he has this novel idea and hasn't been repeated by other nerds before him. nihilist communism personally helped me to not be to preocupied by my role as a "communist" or whatever

[Grenzer]

What the fuck is a proletocrat?

[Grenzer]

There are some things I don't like about the book Nihilist Communism, but it's basically a good critique of unrealistic optimism and messianic determinism in the revolutionary left.

I can agree about the unrealistic optimism, but I kind of got the opposite impression when it comes to messianic determinism. On the contrary, it really seems to be a critique of those who feel the need to constantly be doing something. You know, the kind of people who are desperately calling out for unity among all parts of the left and go on about the need for some kind of "broad labor party or we're irrelevant" shtick.

Maybe one can say it's against messianism in the sense of the said voluntarists thinking revolution is going to be utterly independent on the actions of some tiny self-appointed vanguard. I can't really see how it's critiquing determinism. If anything, voluntarism is caused by an extreme-absence of determinism in thinking that it's the solely subjective factor, our actions individually, that are going to make the difference. Consequently, the branding reproach against nihilist communism is that it, not the thing it's critiquing, is deterministic.

I kind of took it at face value, so what BMH was saying about them "bending the stick" to make a point about voluntarism might be worth going back to. I only took a rough look through it.


Also, Insurrectionist Anarchism has actual theory behind it. It's more than poetry about smashing stuff, although that stuff is fun.

What theory is that, because it ain't Tiqqun. I've read their shit and poetry about smashing stuff seems to more or less be the perfect description for it.

[l'Enfermé]

Aye proletocrats, I don't fancy myself a Nihilist Communist or especially not an Insurrectionist, but ya'll honestly don't sound like you know what you're talking about. There are some things I don't like about the book Nihilist Communism, but it's basically a good critique of unrealistic optimism and messianic determinism in the revolutionary left.
Also, Insurrectionist Anarchism has actual theory behind it. It's more than poetry about smashing stuff, although that stuff is fun.
No it's not. It's a terrible critique of that. A good critique is found in Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc.

[Os Cangaceiros]

^no, those guys blow. Nihilist Communism is where it's at homie.

[Ravachol]

No it's not. It's a terrible critique of that. A good critique is found in Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc.

Why is it not? Can you back that up and quote the appropriate sections of the text (and/or related writings from the 'current')? I suspect it simply rubs you the wrong way ideologically and you haven't read the text.




What theory is that, because it ain't Tiqqun. I've read their shit and poetry about smashing stuff seems to more or less be the perfect description for it.

See this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2540078&postcount=278) post.

[Grenzer]

See this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2540078&postcount=278) post.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll try to read through all of those at some point.

I find your comment about anarcho-syndicalism to be very agreeable. I am starting to understand why this "build the party/organization" mentality can be problematic, not only because of its actual feasibility as a strategy, but because some of the other less obvious implications that you mentioned.

It seems a lot of people on both the anarchist and Marxist side of the fence have this archaic, 19th century approach to organization. Although there have been some famous revolutionaries that have espoused this "build the group!" view, one has to seriously question that this is merely incidental with the limited successes that have been achieved. I'm not saying people should abandon the idea of political organization, but maybe a radical shift in how we view the role of such organizations is needed.

I've been guilty of taking a reductionist view of anarchism, and seen only a caricature that probably stopped being valid more than half a century ago, but I can see that there is indeed real substance to some of this and that it's worthy of consideration.

[Grenzer]

No it's not. It's a terrible critique of that. A good critique is found in Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc.

Where did Lenin make a critique of voluntarism and revolutionary optimism? I think that to a pretty big extent Lenin was guilty of this. This is actually something that Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky all have in common. They all more or less viewed the project of revolution as the personal project of the revolutionary intelligentsia in the sense that they would be the driving force and that the matter of effective political organization was solely incumbent upon themselves.

Of course I'm not saying that they saw revolutionary as a conspiracy headed by revolutionary intelligentsia, but they did see revolution as something that was necessarily dependent on the organization and activity of the revolutionary intelligentsia organizing and guiding the rest of the class. There's some merit to it, no doubt, but we've seen that this is not always the case. Take the 1905 revolution: that was something that more or less broke out without the revolutionary intelligentsia having anything to do with it and the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks came rushing on the scene trying to insinuate themselves into the situation. The party did not make the revolution, the party did not organize the revolution. I have heard some argue that the failure of 1905 was due to the "lack of revolutionary leadership", but I don't know enough about the situation to make a real judgement one way or another.

If one reads there writings, it's hard to miss their supreme confidence and self-assurance in the inevitability of revolutionary and the victory of their pet organizations. Lenin had his Comintern, and we've seen how that worked out. Trotsky had his 4th International and we've seen how that worked out. Stalin had his.. well let's not kid ourselves, he didn't give a fuck about anything.

Lenin is cool, but in my opinion Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin's politics have always been very optimistic, and not always in a constructive way. Recall Trotsky's last words? "Tell our friends I am sure of the victory of the Fourth International - go forward!"

If he did indeed say this, then it's rather revealing that he wished his organization, rather than the proletariat success. Yes, it's true Leninism(whether one means it genuinely or the more popularly understood definition) has always been a very optimistic ideology to an extent I am not sure was necessarily shared by Marx and Engels. That's a trap we should avoid falling into.

The thing that was most annoying about the book nihilist communism was its shitty grammar.

[Ravachol]

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll try to read through all of those at some point.

I find your comment about anarcho-syndicalism to be very agreeable. I am starting to understand why this "build the party/organization" mentality can be problematic, not only because of its actual feasibility as a strategy, but because some of the other less obvious implications that you mentioned.

It seems a lot of people on both the anarchist and Marxist side of the fence have this archaic, 19th century approach to organization. Although there have been some famous revolutionaries that have espoused this "build the group!" view, one has to seriously question that this is merely incidental with the limited successes that have been achieved. I'm not saying people should abandon the idea of political organization, but maybe a radical shift in how we view the role of such organizations is needed.


Yeah I fully agree, to quote Marx the 'traditions of all dead generations weigh like a nightmare on the brain of the living' and in the case of the perception of revolutionary organisation often lead to a very undialectical, a-historical view of what does and what does not give rise to communism as a real movement. I think there's a role for specific revolutionary organisations as much as there's a role for individual and collective militancy (if only because history sometimes forces our hand) but not in the perspective, shape and sense that it's perceived of in conventional leftist 'common sense'.



I've been guilty of taking a reductionist view of anarchism, and seen only a caricature that probably stopped being valid more than half a century ago, but I can see that there is indeed real substance to some of this and that it's worthy of consideration.

Yeah I guess anarchism is a very mixed-bag phenomenon which doesn't fit as rigid borders as 'Marxism' often seems to do. There's points where the line gets very fine though and it sometimes becomes unclear where the distinction lies, something that isn't of much interest to me anyway. I have more in common with various types of Marxists than with, say, platformist anarchists or Bookchin types.