meet the nihilist-anarchist network bringing chaos to a town near you

[bcbm]

http://www.vice.com/read/the-fai-are-the-worlds-true-anarchists

[TheEmancipator]

Political "Russian" Nihilism is a one way ticket to demonising any revolutionary movement in today's world.

[Luís Henrique]

Of course, sooner or later they will kill or maim someone they really shouldn't, and then may the goddess of your choice help them with dealing with the backlash.

Luís Henrique

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Bringing the bomb-throwing anarchist stereotype back.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

but isn´t the urge to destroy a creative one in the end?

[Sasha]

Wow, that's some sloppy "journalism", the vid of the rabobank fire for example was maybe claimed in an rambling incoherent letter but arson was actually ruled out in the investigation, the picture of the cross cutting was an action by Ukrainian group femen, not even in Russia and anything but insurectionary anarchist...
Also he should make up his mind wether FAI is an actual organization or a nom de guerre that can be picked up by anyone.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Of course, sooner or later they will kill or maim someone they really shouldn't, and then may the goddess of your choice help them with dealing with the backlash.

Luís Henrique

A bomb detonated outside a school in Italy a while back, killing a child, and it was blamed on them, actually.

Not to say that they did it, but...

[Luís Henrique]

Also he should make up his mind wether FAI is an actual organization or a nom de guerre that can be picked up by anyone.

I think the main thrust of his piece is that something can be both.

Luís Henrique

[Let's Get Free]

It seems to me that Nihilist anarchists usually operate under extreme conditions- conditions of extreme repression (as in Tsarist Russia) or conditions of extreme boredom (as in this article).

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think it's wrong to associate these guys with the Russian nihilists of many years ago. "Russian nihilism" was a blend of populism and mysticism, with especially heavy emphasis on Christian themes of martyrdom, etc. Maybe with a little egoism thrown in as well. It was a unique political movement of it's era and can't really be easily compared to modern political movements, in my opinion.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Comment:
Every time these knuckleheads burn, or blow some shit up, guys in Armani suits aren't out sweeping up the glass or doing the repairs afterwards. Regular working class people are. The maintenance and janitorial crews of their targets have to hate these guys, but who cares about them? Nihilists.

I don't sympathize with the Anarchists, but this typical 'argument' really is annoying. Do these people know how many buildings are destroyed each year by the Imperialists bombs, how many factories are gathering rust and dust because of the dysfunctional capitalist system?

[Let's Get Free]

I think it's wrong to associate these guys with the Russian nihilists of many years ago. "Russian nihilism" was a blend of populism and mysticism, with especially heavy emphasis on Christian themes of martyrdom, etc. Maybe with a little egoism thrown in as well. It was a unique political movement of it's era and can't really be easily compared to modern political movements, in my opinion.

Yeah, I suppose i meant these general insurrectionist types

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

This is brilliantly meta. See, you just have to read in to the subtexts. The international nihilist conspiracy is actually Vice. The anarchists (FAI, and the other FAI), Femen, and accidental fires in banks are all in the service of the totally contentless [sic] project of some coked out hipsters from New York.
Seriously, look in to Vice. There's some Thomas Pynchon level weirdness going on.
Ever heard of the Tugboat Thought Society?

[Yuppie Grinder]

http://www.vice.com/read/the-fai-are-the-worlds-true-anarchists

If only.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Political "Russian" Nihilism is a one way ticket to demonising any revolutionary movement in today's world.

To me, this whole line is becoming a bigger and bigger cop out everytime in which I hear it.

As I said numerous times, yes, hell forbid anyone take any direct action whatsoever.


Bringing the bomb-throwing anarchist stereotype back.

They're bringing sexy back.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

As I said numerous times, yes, hell forbid anyone take any direct action whatsoever.

Direct action is always substitutionism. I asked Monsieur DuPont.

[Let's Get Free]

To me, this whole line is becoming a bigger and bigger cop out everytime in which I hear it.

As I said numerous times, yes, hell forbid anyone take any direct action whatsoever.


This rings false to me for a few reasons. The biggest one being that the number and extremity of actions do not bring us closer to revolution and communism, or I would have moved to Greece a long time ago. Of course, the lack of actions and slogans does not bring us closer either, however.

I could go out each night and break windows, spray-paint slogans against the police, or blow up stuff, but that would accomplish absolutely nothing. except perhaps giving me an adrenaline rush.

I disagree with their tactics, but I would never condemn those who get pleasure from destroying property or whatever.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

This rings false to me for a few reasons. The biggest one being that the number and extremity of actions do not bring us closer to revolution and communism, or I would have moved to Greece a long time ago. Of course, the lack of actions and slogans does not bring us closer either, however.

Who said that was the point? Revolution ≠ Insurrection.

"Revolution and insurrection must not be looked upon as synonymous. The former consists in an overturning of conditions, of the established condition or status, the State or society, and is accordingly a political or social act; the latter has indeed for its unavoidable consequence a transformation of circumstances, yet does not start from it but from men's discontent with themselves, is not an armed rising, but a rising of individuals, a getting up, without regard to the arrangements that spring from it. The Revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and sets no glittering hopes on "institutions." It is not a fight against the established, since, if it prospers, the established collapses of itself; it is only a working forth of me out of the established. If I leave the established, it is dead and passes into decay. Now, as my object is not the overthrow of an established order but my elevation above it, my purpose and deed are not a political or social but (as directed toward myself and my ownness alone) an egoistic purpose and deed."-Max Stirner.


I disagree with their tactics, but I would never condemn those who get pleasure from destroying property or whatever.

Direct action doesn't always equate to petty vandalism. Why is this sort of thing argued and situations framed as such single time we talk about groups like the IAF or BB? It seems rather intellectually limiting.

[Let's Get Free]

Who said that was the point? Revolution ≠ Insurrection.

"Revolution and insurrection must not be looked upon as synonymous. The former consists in an overturning of conditions, of the established condition or status, the State or society, and is accordingly a political or social act; the latter has indeed for its unavoidable consequence a transformation of circumstances, yet does not start from it but from men's discontent with themselves, is not an armed rising, but a rising of individuals, a getting up, without regard to the arrangements that spring from it. The Revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and sets no glittering hopes on "institutions." It is not a fight against the established, since, if it prospers, the established collapses of itself; it is only a working forth of me out of the established. If I leave the established, it is dead and passes into decay. Now, as my object is not the overthrow of an established order but my elevation above it, my purpose and deed are not a political or social but (as directed toward myself and my ownness alone) an egoistic purpose and deed."-Max Stirner.

By “insurrection,” most people mean a revolutionary uprising by the mass of people to overturn the ruling class and smash its state. By this definition the so-called insurrectionists are clearly not for an insurrection — a popular uprising — but are mainly interested in rebellious activities being carried out by themselves, a revolutionary minority.

Insurrectionists have no overall strategy that can adapt through consideration of the current political climate. It is not one embedded in the wider working class movement. There is no strategy for creating a new society which must be built from the base up and involve a mass movement. This points to weak ideology. Insurrectionism places the activist and affinity group above the class. As such it is substitutionist.


Direct action doesn't always equate to petty vandalism. Why is this sort of thing argued and situations framed as such single time we talk about groups like the IAF or BB? It seems rather intellectually limiting.


Whatever the "direct action" is, it must be thoroughly thought through and not carried out just to make the individuals carrying them out to feel better. The action must be part of an overall strategy and linked to a wider working class movement.

[Sasha]

Insurrectionists have no overall strategy that can adapt through consideration of the current political climate. It is not one embedded in the wider working class movement. There is no strategy for creating a new society which must be built from the base up and involve a mass movement. This points to weak ideology. Insurrectionism places the activist and affinity group above the class. As such it is substitutionist.


i reckon you never read any insurrectionist or insurectionary influenced communisation theory than? the stuff i read is rather full off overal strategy, consideration of the current political climate and embedded in the wider working class climate, or at least a heck of a lot more than all the leftwing of fordism "revolutionary left" sects out there.

[Let's Get Free]

i reckon you never read any insurrectionist or insurectionary influenced communisation theory than?

I've tried to read Bonano, but ive always found him to be unreadable. Whether that's due to bad translation or him being full of shit, I'm not sure.

[Delenda Carthago]

I've tried to read Bonano, but ive always found him to be unreadable. Whether that's due to bad translation or him being full of shit, I'm not sure.
No, its just him.

[Delenda Carthago]

Russian nihilism was so much more godamit. Its not nessesry that nihilism is been translated to "mindless hooligans that burn/bomb shit up".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_Tchaikovsky

[Luís Henrique]

I've tried to read Bonano, but ive always found him to be unreadable. Whether that's due to bad translation or him being full of shit, I'm not sure.

Don't know; perhaps both. Perhaps one has to be full of shit to translate a text by someone who is full of shit.

I usually don't think great of intellectual fools pretending that they are anti-intellectual smarties, so I wouldn't waste my time.

Luís Henrique

[TheEmancipator]

Russian nihilism was so much more godamit. Its not nessesry that nihilism is been translated to "mindless hooligans that burn/bomb shit up".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_Tchaikovsky

My comrade, the Russian "Nihilists" (who weren't nihilists) advocated total misery for all classes and humans to further the revolutionary process. They believe in slaughter and sabotage without any reason or thought, only as a means to quicken a state of total chaos or "Revolution" for them. They are, what intelligent people who know what the word means, terrorists.

While their tactics in that historical context could be justifiable, in today's world they are simply outdated. What they are certainly not is some lionised form of defence against oppression, since these people believe in the misery of the poor as much as the rich.

If you adopt such a policy as necessity in your head then I believe you may have the wrong forum.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Bonanno has written quite a bit of good stuff. Like this:


Because, comrades, let us be clear about this, it is not true that we can only prepare ourselves psychologically; go through spiritual exercises, then present ourselves in real situations with our flags. That is impossible. The proletariat, or whatever you want to call them, the excluded who are rioting, will push us away as peculiar and suspect external visitors. Suspicious. What on earth can we have in common with those acting anonymously against the absolute uselessness of their own lives and not because of need and scarcity? With those who react even though they have colour TV at home, video, telephone and many other consumer objects; who are able to eat, yet still react? What can we say to them? Perhaps what the anarchist organisations of synthesis said in the last century? Malatesta’s insurrectionalist discourse? This is what is obsolete. That kind of insurrectional argument is obsolete. We must therefore find a different way very quickly.

Nothing obscure about that, and it's 100% true.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Bonano is like Lenin - always better quoted out of context. :grin:

[Sasha]

I have always been quite partial to the text "at daggers drawn with the existent" and the replies to that work. Though that is indeed more an call to arms than a piece of political theory.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anarchism is internationalist, its struggle does not confine itself to one region or area in the world, but extends everywhere alongside the proletariat who are struggling for their own liberation. This requires a declaration of principles which are not abstract and vague, but concrete and well-defined. We are not interested in a universal humanism which finds origin and justification in the French bourgeois revolution of 1789. The declaration of the rights of man, a banner waved by all the democratic governments in power today, deals with an abstract man who is identified with the bourgeois ideal.

^another good one ;)1

[brigadista]

vice is nonsense

[Ravachol]

People who completely conflate late 19th century russian nihilism with the nihilist-egoist current don't know what they're talking about. That goes for the people who conflate insurrectionary anarchism and CCF-style nihilism as well.

'Insurrectionary anarchism' is quite a broad 'tendency' and historically included everything from the Galleanist 'propaganda of the deed' anarchists to the positions held by Malatesta and the praxis which held a major sway with the the many grupistas (including, for example, Nosotros and Los Solidarios) orbiting the CNT and FAI in the interbellum. For an overview of this I recommend the book 'Anarchism and the City' by Chris Eelham, while the man is mostly partial to reformist and syndicalist politics he is a good historian and describes the composition of the Spanish proletarian movement in great detail.

As Psycho mentioned, a lot coming from the 'communisation' milieu is often insurrectionist in nature though differing from the 'Bonanno'-style [email protected] The Insurrectionary Anarchism which is mostly associated with Alfredo Bonanno (he has some interesting things to say and makes some decent observations though I find him lacking overall) and such publications (to name a few) as Machete, A corps perdu, Diavolo in Corpo, Killing King Abacus, Guerre au Paradis, Fire to the prisons and A murder of crows differs from the former due to the more voluntarist nature of their arguments. Though I find them lacking on many fronts an i'm not an 'insurrectionary anarchist' proper, accusing them of 'lacking strategy' is ridiculous, especially when coming from leftist cosplayers who's "strategy" consists of either coattailing reformist and soc.dem organisations or shouting the jargon-laden equivalent of "Lets try all this again, but this time HARDER" all day. Most insurrecionist publications feature long an in-depth articles on the specifics and conditions of various uprisings, clashes and the counter-insurgency operations mounted against them all over the world, evaluating what worked and what didn't and what furthered the insurgency and what recuperated/halted it. Despite the fact that what surfaces from that milieu is usually very bombastic prose-poetry and over-the-top communiques, obviously that's not all there is to it and the fossils on this forum who like to pretend it is are just mad that for all their prayers their 'proletarian revolutionary mass movement' hasn't been summoned yet by their endlessly repeated rituals.

Everyone who talks about the 'big revolutionary proletarian mass movements' and how 'connected' their petty sect is to it and how some kids throwing molotovs and setting of firecrackers are 'disconnected' from it either have no experience whatsoever with any actual activity outside of papersales or they mistake labor activism for revolutionary activity, potentially in the form of a gigantic summoning ritual that, once the magical threshold of effort is reached, will open up the gates of historical materialism and communism will pour out.

To quote some bro from somewhere else



Disconnected from the working class' is a ridiculous criteria in the modern era, as if there was some massive prole movement that someone fails to connect to. But there isn't such a thing. The proles are disconnected from each other. The proliest workerist isn't connected to any vast hoard of proles, they just know a few of their friends.

[Luís Henrique]

Disconnected from the working class' is a ridiculous criteria in the modern era, as if there was some massive prole movement that someone fails to connect to. But there isn't such a thing. The proles are disconnected from each other. The proliest workerist isn't connected to any vast hoard of proles, they just know a few of their friends.

Well, I am indeed sorry to say, but this just means your friend is, guess what? disconnected from the working class.

Oh, and that he doesn't understand what being connected to the working class means.

Luís Henrique

[Ravachol]

Well, I am indeed sorry to say, but this just means your friend is, guess what? disconnected from the working class.

Oh, and that he doesn't understand what being connected to the working class means.

Luís Henrique

Care to tell me about your connection to that great massified proletarian movement that I must somehow have missed? Oh, and take care not to mistake the crumbling fossil of the 'labor movement' and its handful of unions and parties for it would you?

[The Douche]

Haven't been here in a while, so I see this thread and I say to myself "oh, awesome", having read through it, I can safely say I am not ready to post on revleft yet. :rolleyes:


I really have respect for those of you who can continue to log in here, day after day, for years, and have the same stupid, pedantic "arguments" with people who will never listen, and who ultimately are on the wrong team.

[Ravachol]

Haven't been here in a while, so I see this thread and I say to myself "oh, awesome", having read through it, I can safely say I am not ready to post on revleft yet. :rolleyes:


I really have respect for those of you who can continue to log in here, day after day, for years, and have the same stupid, pedantic "arguments" with people who will never listen, and who ultimately are on the wrong team.

For me its mostly procrastination and the fact that my work demands sitting behind a PC all day anyway.

[Luís Henrique]

Care to tell me about your connection to that great massified proletarian movement that I must somehow have missed?

And since when "working class" = "great massified proletarian movement"?


Oh, and take care not to mistake the crumbling fossil of the 'labor movement' and its handful of unions and parties for it would you?

:laugh:

Perhaps it is you who mistake the "crumbling fossil" for the working class, since you don't mind being disconnected from the class, and you seem to think that since the labour movement is now a crumbling fossil it means the working class doesn't exist anymore...?

Luís Henrique

[Ravachol]

And since when "working class" = "great massified proletarian movement"?


It isn't. What this has to do with being 'disconnected' from it I don't know. There's no big massified proletarian movement (esp. in the US and North-West Europe) to be connected to or disconnected from. In addition to that, the proletariat is extremely disconnected and alienated itself, not simply segmented in the usual fashion (by trade, race, nationality, gender, religion, political stripe, etc.) but on a thoroughly atomized level. The phrase 'being disconnected from the working class' is just a political ruse attempting to con militants into tailing fragmentary populist politics that, for every worker they win, alienates a thousand others. Being connected to the class and its pulse has meaning, sure, but outside sporadic moments of the intensification of class antagonism, this means nothing anymore in the modern world. The great proletarian movements of the late 19th century and the early 20th century are gone and they have left a void that cannot be filled by either activists banging their heads against brick walls or historical re-enactment societies.



Perhaps it is you who mistake the "crumbling fossil" for the working class, since you don't mind being disconnected from the class


I invite you to point me towards this proletarian mass movement you talk of and how connected you are to it. In the absence of the former, I invite you to talk about how well-connected you or your sect and the working class are.


since the labour movement is now a crumbling fossil it means the working class doesn't exist anymore...?

Yes, this is what I believe. This is indeed the only possible explanation of my words, something that becomes even more evident when you read my countless other posts on this forum. Congrats, good job boy.

[Luís Henrique]

I invite you to point me towards this proletarian mass movement you talk of and how connected you are to it.

But what proletarian mass movement have I said I am connected to?


In the absence of the former, I invite you to talk about how well-connected you or your sect and the working class are.

I am a member of the working class, so really...


Yes, this is what I believe. This is indeed the only possible explanation of my words, something that becomes even more evident when you read my countless other posts on this forum. Congrats, good job boy.

In which case you have just made a not quite well thought post, for it is indicative of such kind of position...

Luís Henrique

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I don't see what the problem is with direct action.
I think there should be more organizations of the kind, because we all know that the democratic form of protest does not work.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

One point of contention - arguably there are massive proletarian movements. They are disproportionately made up of women and children in sweatshops in the third world, and their organizational forms, their rebellions, etc. are often scarcely felt in the imperial centre.

As for workers in the first world, there is undeniably the historical residue of class-movements (various organizations and parties that persist, zombie-like, hardly aware that their 8 hour day and their weekends are fast becoming things of the past as well). The reality is that both kids setting off firecrackers and little Trotskyist sects are connected to this history, are shaped by it; both also continue fail wildly in terms of any project to constitute a party against capital. Whether you prefer rioting or selling papers is actually not nearly so significant as both camps want to pretend, and, ultimately, both are probably necessary, even if, right now, both are only marginally useful in that they keep the flame burning.

And yeah, to try and approach a unitary "insurrectionism" is pretty hopeless. You're as likely to find common ground between a given anarchist and given Marxist, as between the CCF, the kids firing off flares at riot police in Montreal, and the tiqqunistas distributing stolen photocopies on the university campus.

[Ravachol]

I am a member of the working class, so really...


So am I so I guess we're equally 'connected to the class', just like every other prole. Doesn't really favor your argument about being connected to or disconnected from the class though does it?



In which case you have just made a not quite well thought post, for it is indicative of such kind of position...

Luís Henrique

You're not supposed to take hermeneutics to such a level :rolleyes: Either that or actually reading a post might be helpful.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Isn't the world big enough to accommodate a diverse variety of tactics/strategies? There are billions of proletarians, I don't think it's remotely realistic to envision one single organisation, praxis or ideology winning over all of them.

It's not exactly clear to me how insurrectionists blowing shit up prevents people from organising in the workplace. Surely a multi-pronged assault upon the capitalist price system would be more effective than any of those prongs in isolation?

[Ravachol]

*cue comment about 'alienating the masses'*

[Let's Get Free]

The capitalists control the state and means of production, not by some conspiracy, but with the consent or acquiescence of the majority of the population, a consent which expresses itself in everyday attitudes towards rich people, leaders, nationalism, money, etc. and, at election times, in voting for parties which support capitalism and class ownership.

As I understand it, insurrectionism is useful in the context of a mass organised working class struggle against capital and the state. It is an extra tool against the boss class in times of heightened class struggle that can complement mass strikes, occupations, street fighting, barricades, etc, etc. But right now, we are no where near the point where the mass of people are ready to rise up against capital or the state, and to attempt any artificial insurrection is only to invite failure.

[Art Vandelay]

What is important to understand is that egoists and insurrectionists of this variety don't have the same goals as most of the people on this board do. They aren't trying to rally the working class into a mass movement, nor are they even really attempting to build an organization. So it is not surprising, that their tactics would differ from ours.

As far as the group goes, I like them. Am I going to go out and do similar things? No, because I am for building a mass Marxist party capable of surpassing capital. However if these people find their actions personally liberating and blow up some symbols of capital's hegemony in the process (or kneecap some slimy businessmen) then more power to them.

[Luís Henrique]

You're not supposed to take hermeneutics to such a level

I know, but I like to transgress the rules about hermeneutics. I am a serial hermeneuter.

But sorry to have hermeneuted you too much.

Luís Henrique

[Ravachol]

I know, but I like to transgress the rules about hermeneutics. I am a serial hermeneuter.

But sorry to have hermeneuted you too much.

Luís Henrique

No problem, your hermeneutism is hermeneuted.

[Luís Henrique]

No problem, your hermeneutism is hermeneuted.

Question is, quis hermeneutiet ipsos hermeneutes.

Luís Henrique