Insurrectionary anarchism

[BIXX]

Can someone give me a basic rundown of insurrectionary anarchism? I've been trying to study it but there seems to be very little good reference material that I'm aware of. I'm reading Bakunin right now which some people have said tends to lead to insurrectionism, but I have yet to understand why it would lead to insurrectionism.

A few other questions: where does the "make total destroy" thing come from?

How well does the Wikipedia page (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrectionary_anarchism) cover it (namely in the theory section).

The Wikipedia page talks about an actual fight between insurrectionary anarchists and the Antiauthoritarian anarchists- why is this? I know it says that they were in trouble for some people stealing computers, but why was it escalated so much?

Any explanation is helpful, thank you!

[Brutus]

If you want texts on insurrection, read Blanqui. He has an archive in the MIA

[Sasha]

I would start with bonano and the trackt "at daggers drawn with the existent"

[cyu]

I would assume anybody who considers themselves "revolutionary leftists" would support insurrection... as for whether they would be "insurrectionary anarchists" - who knows :D

[The Feral Underclass]

Can someone give me a basic rundown of insurrectionary anarchism? I've been trying to study it but there seems to be very little good reference material that I'm aware of. I'm reading Bakunin right now which some people have said tends to lead to insurrectionism, but I have yet to understand why it would lead to insurrectionism.

A few other questions: where does the "make total destroy" thing come from?

How well does the Wikipedia page (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrectionary_anarchism) cover it (namely in the theory section).


Stuff by Wolfi Landstreicher or Alfredo Bonanno would be a good starting point.

What is it specifically about the wikipedia article that you are having difficulty with, as I think it gives a fairly decent overview.


The Wikipedia page talks about an actual fight between insurrectionary anarchists and the Antiauthoritarian anarchists- why is this? I know it says that they were in trouble for some people stealing computers, but why was it escalated so much?

Well insurrectionists believe they are justified in attacking the state and capital now and don't necessarily involve themselves in building social movements, something social anarchists believe is vital. They often employ tactics that the state would characterise as "terrorism" and most social anarchists would consider those methods counter-intuitive if not outright counter-productive.

Insurrectionists would counter that by arguing it is necessary for oppressed and exploited individuals in society to take action that challenges the systems that oppress and exploit them instead of waiting, and that these acts may inspire others.

Social anarchists would usually respond to that by arguing that far from these tactics being inspiring, they alienate other workers and create massive state repression that effects the whole movement.

Then the debate would come down to escalation vs movement building I suppose. There is of course some cross over and not all social anarchists are quick to condemn insurrectionists.

Historically some insurrectionists have also lost all sense of political direction, essentially becoming adventurists and back robbers. Some Italian insurrectionists were widely condemned for killing some bank workers.

This may be an oversimplification of these debates, but I assume they are the bare bones of the disagreement you are describing...

[BIXX]

What is it specifically about the wikipedia article that you are having difficulty with, as I think it gives a fairly decent overview.

I haven't really struggled with it, I just wondered if it gave an accurate portrayal of the insurrectionist position. Cause Wikipedia is kinda a hit or a miss with a lot of stuff, especially (in my experience) revolutionary politics.


This may be an oversimplification of these debates, but I assume they are the bare bones of the disagreement you are describing...

Thank you, that helps a lot.

As a side question, what is adventurism?

[Ele'ill]

anarchy101.org occasionally has some interesting Q&A replies to specific questions and there are several about insurrectionary anarchism.

also http://theanarchistlibrary.org/topics/insurrectionist
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/topics/insurrectionary
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/topics/insurrection

[Ele'ill]

As a side question, what is adventurism?

adventurism is autonomous organization and action usually used as a slur by authoritarians to illustrate the disgust towards some folks breaking away from their obsessive control

[Tolstoy]

The current mindset prevents any violent insurrection from bringing about any utopian, worker run, stateless society thats dreamed of by the Anarcho Syndicalists. The mindset of most Americans is one that reinforces gender roles, has faith in hirearchy and beleives in the notion that "Might Makes Right". True peoples autonomy and Anarchism that isnt Somalia like can only be accomplished by creating the appropriate social mores, ending rape culture and slowly dismantling capitalism either through state control under a dicatatorship of the proleteriat (which risks simply becoming a dictatorship) or by developing a growing network of pacifistic, communistic collectives where all power is shared. As said coops replace capitalist methods of distribution, than we will have won.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Malatesta is kind of like the forefather of modern IA, imo. Bonanno is the most significant proponent of it in the modern era. I'd recommend reading him, Killing King Abacus & Daggers Drawn for a good overview of it I guess.

As far as tension between IA's and non-IA's goes, there's been some periodic episodes of that...recently the UK Anarchist Federation got into a spat with some Italian insurrectionary anarchists for a parcel bombing they carried out which injured a postal worker. Parcel bombings are really dumb so the AF were in the right on that one.

[bcbm]

murder of crows (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-a-murder-of-crows) and killing king abacus (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reocities.com%2Fkk_abacus%2F&ei=rxzGUfPmNITx0gGF3oB4&usg=AFQjCNFFrg3pauc3qcqjvG0k5CNJR4QJdg&sig2=7xXUoTu3dzS5UU_WzGMV6w&bvm=bv.48293060,d.dmQ) (useful introduction: some notes on insurrectionary anarchism (http://libcom.org/library/some-notes-insurrectionary-anarchism)) were good insurrectionary magazines from the late 90's, early oughts period of insurrectionary anarchism which was primarily influenced by some anarchists in the 70s and 80s, primarily italian(alfredo bonanno (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/authors/Alfredo_M__Bonanno.html)) but also some from the uk(insurrection magazine (http://325.nostate.net/?p=443)) and the eco/anti-civ discourse (do or die (http://www.eco-action.org/dod/index.html)) popular at the time.

a related development is an insurrectionary idea drawing more from left-communist/autonomist ideas and continental philosophy, primarily represented by tiqqun (https://tiqqunista.jottit.com/), the coming insurrection (http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-insurrection/) and such.

at daggers drawn (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-at-daggers-drawn-with-the-existent-its-defenders-and-its-false-critics), as previously mentioned, is a good place to start
325 (http://325.nostate.net/) is a good insurrectionary anarchist website with news and a decent library
war on society (http://waronsociety.noblogs.org/) carries news for anarchists, mostly related to attacks
the institute for experimental freedom (http://www.politicsisnotabanana.com/) is more related to the tiqqun-type insurrectionaries but draws from all over


A few other questions: where does the "make total destroy" thing come from?


Here’s the way I remember hearing the story, I don’t know if it’s true per se, and I don’t suppose it much matters. There was an [anti-G8] spokescouncil in [Germany,] and representatives from all over the world were discussing what actions their communities would take locally. Person by person, they detailed comprehensive plans for direct actions, balancing risks and possible rewards, the various statements they would be making, the composition of coalitions, etc. These kinds of meetings can stretch on and on, and are often filled with all sorts of bullshit posturing and rarefied code words. In short, they can be insufferable. The discussion finally gets around to a Greek anarchist group. The Greeks are internationally known for being especially militant (and awesome). Their spokesman addresses the assembly and says simply, “We will make total destroy.” Everyone looks incredulous and confused. The Greek spokesman, fearing he has miscommunicated, excuses himself to confer with his group. He speaks with them in hurried Greek, and the rest of the assembly seems relieved that there will be further explanation. After the short clarification, the spokesman turns to the room again and says, “Yes, we will make total destroy.”

[The Douche]

If you want texts on insurrection, read Blanqui. He has an archive in the MIA

Don't answer threads in the learning forum when you don't know what you're talking about. Come on...

[Ele'ill]

also a new blog/periodical, Storming Heaven


http://stormingheaven.noblogs.org/


and an old blog that covered various actions, Social Rupture

http://socialrupture.tumblr.com/

[The Feral Underclass]

adventurism is autonomous organization and action usually used as a slur by authoritarians to illustrate the disgust towards some folks breaking away from their obsessive control

Is it only authoritarians who can use it as a slur?

[The Douche]

Is it only authoritarians who can use it as a slur?

Yes. We're all authoritarians now.

[Ele'ill]

Is it only authoritarians who can use it as a slur?

what?

[The Douche]

what?

I think TAT is indicating that he considers himself to be an anti-authoritarian, but he believes an honest critique of insurrectionists can be made, under the pretext that they are adventurists.


Ya'll need to forget about that phony authoritarian/anti-authoritarian language though. We all believe in authority, we even want to exercise the authority of the working class against the bourgeoisie. So I don't see how anybody can claim to be "anti-authoritarian" unless they have some weird anti-capitalist useage of the whole "non-initiation of force" thing, but in that event, they wouldn't be a revolutionary.

How is storming into the factory and bonking the boss on his head, and taking over the place, and locking him out not exercising authority?

[Ele'ill]

I used the word because there are users on the forum who only partially jokingly acknowledge that they are 'authoritarian communist' as a specific thing (in advance I guess since i've never seen it leveled against them in any of the recent discussions) and they are the most frequent users of the word adventurist, used as a slur to describe any deviation from their party program. I figured the original question was asked because the user saw it in one of the many recent discussions.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think TAT is indicating that he considers himself to be an anti-authoritarian, but he believes an honest critique of insurrectionists can be made, under the pretext that they are adventurists.

Unless I am misunderstanding the term.


Ya'll need to forget about that phony authoritarian/anti-authoritarian language though. We all believe in authority, we even want to exercise the authority of the working class against the bourgeoisie. So I don't see how anybody can claim to be "anti-authoritarian" unless they have some weird anti-capitalist useage of the whole "non-initiation of force" thing, but in that event, they wouldn't be a revolutionary.

How is storming into the factory and bonking the boss on his head, and taking over the place, and locking him out not exercising authority?

Well the argument could be made that an act of self-defence is not an act of authoritarianism but an act of preservation. Also, we aren't seeking authority over bosses, we seek an end to their authority over us.

But whatever, I don't care if you want to call it authority over the bosses.

[The Feral Underclass]

I used the word because there are users on the forum who only partially jokingly acknowledge that they are 'authoritarian communist' as a specific thing (in advance I guess since i've never seen it leveled against them in any of the recent discussions) and they are the most frequent users of the word adventurist, used as a slur to describe any deviation from their party program. I figured the original question was asked because the user saw it in one of the many recent discussions.

But the term also refers to something specific, which is what I am criticising. I mean it's all fine and well to rob banks and literally go on adventures. I mean, I don't principally have anything wrong with piracy for example, but when that involves killing workers or impeding a proper counter power to capital, it becomes a problem.

[Ele'ill]

I don't think the adventurist criticisms I usually see on this forum have to do with killing workers and 'proper counter power to capital' is pretty vague and opinionated

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't think the adventurist criticisms I usually see on this forum have to do with killing workers and 'proper counter power to capital' is pretty vague and opinionated

Yes, it is opinionated. Why is that a problem? When I say "proper counter power to capital," I mean the proletariat organised to communise the products of their labour and ultimately seize the means of production.

[Ravachol]

Yes, it is opinionated. Why is that a problem? When I say "proper counter power to capital," I mean the proletariat organised to communise the products of their labour and ultimately seize the means of production.

That is not what communisation entails.

[The Feral Underclass]

That is not what communisation entails.

I'm happy to be enlightened if you want to expand on your statement.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Well insurrectionists believe they are justified in attacking the state and capital now and don't necessarily involve themselves in building social movements, something social anarchists believe is vital. They often employ tactics that the state would characterise as "terrorism" and most social anarchists would consider those methods counter-intuitive if not outright counter-productive.

Insurrectionists would counter that by arguing it is necessary for oppressed and exploited individuals in society to take action that challenges the systems that oppress and exploit them instead of waiting, and that these acts may inspire others.

What are the links and - if there are some - differences between IA and illegalism?

[bcbm]

What are the links and - if there are some - differences between IA and illegalism?

illegalism was primarily a product of individualist anarchists in the early 20th century. insurrectionary anarchism is more aligned with the collectivist anarchists, but does draw some inspiration from these individualists with people like renzo novatore (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/authors/Renzo_Novatore.html) having some resurgent popularity in recent years.

[Ravachol]

I'm happy to be enlightened if you want to expand on your statement.

Well, when you talk about workers 'communising the products of their labour and ultimately seizing the means of production' you predicate this upon an 'organized proletariat as a proper counter power to capital'.

The problem here is twofold:

1) The premise of the communisation thesis (in the broadest sense, but specifically the milieu that includes Theorie Communiste, Endnotes, Blaumachen, Troploin, Riff-Raff, etc.) lies with the structural impossibility of the formation of a 'proper counter power to capital' and the impossibility (and undesirability, though the degree of normativism varies between different groups) of the proletariat organising itself as a klasse-fur-sich in the current epoch.

Any notion of the formation of an organised counter-power to capital which bases itself in the proletariat's role as the proletariat (ie. the affirmation of the proletarian condition) is invariably linked to the ascendant power of the proletariat within capitalism under formal subsumption. This ascendant power, which manifested itself through the expanding power of the unions, the formation of various workers' parties and the solidification of various 'gains' (all of which are commonly known as the now bygone "workers' movement") found its apex in the welfare state that was established in the wake of WWII, where the integration of the (guaranteed) social reproduction of the proletariat in the reproduction of capital was made possible by linking the proletariat's consumption to the expansion of capital. This period (from the early '50s to the late '60s) is commonly referred to as 'fordism' and is seen by some within the communisation milieu as the final solidification of the real subsumption of capital (though nuances on the formal/real distinction and warnings against strict periodisations should be taken into account). The crisis of fordism, which was interwoven with the "second assault of the proletariat on class society" (ie. the long global wave of unrest and insurrections from '68 till roughly '77) was solved in a manner that restructured the capital-relation in such a fashion that permanently wiped away the basis upon which its integrated social reproduction rested. There's many more factors regarding the dissection of the proletariat and the death of the workers' movement from 1914 all the way through the long '60s but the very notion of communisation is incompatible with the notion of an organised, self-affirming proletariat that establishes a stable, expanding ground for its counter-power (which, if we were to hold it up against normative standards, would end up affirming capital anyway as the proletariat is nothing but an aspect of capital).

So whereas some within the communisation milieu (eg. Dauve) might hold that communisation might have been a possibility during the 'epoch of the ascendant proletariat' (posing a unified 'counter power' on the basis of the proletarian condition), others hold that it is a possibility that has only been opened up as the result of the current restructuring of capital (eg. Theorie Communiste). Both, however, agree that the era of "workers' power" is over. Check out publications like Endnotes #1, SIC, Riff-Raff #8 and onwards for a more in-depth take on the matter.

2) When you talk about seizing the means of production that's inherently contradictory with the conception of communisation. The traditional 'seizure of the means of production', the taking over of the factories, machinery, etc. in short: the shift of the administration of the material base of capital from the bourgeoisie to a unified proletariat is something that the communisateurs see as a) impossible for all the above reasons b) undesirable as it, like the myth of 'self-management', entails nothing but a shift in the administration of capital, taking the old world as one finds it but putting it under the management of a different subject ends up reproducing the old world and all that entails. Building on Bordiga's critique of the factory councils, critiques of self-management by such publications as Bilan (on the matter of the spanish experience) or groups like Negation (on the matter of the Lip experience in France) and ultra-left critiques of councilism, communisation explicitly rejects the notion that communism is (or is preceded by) a set-piece seizure of the means of production. The halting of the reproduction of capital and the seizure of material wealth and space will form a part of the process of communisation, but it will not involve the construction of "organs of workers power" putting the machinery (in the literal and figurative sense of the word) of this world to work for "different goals". I suggest this text, for starters: http://libcom.org/library/communisation-vs-socialisation-suspended-step-communisation-theorie-communiste

Obviously i'm being a little blunt here and there's a lot of complex issues surrounding these matters but the general point is that such notions as "workers' power"/"klasse-fur-sich" and "the seizure of the means of production"/"self-management" are incompatible with communisation.

Some general reading materials:

What is communisation - http://libcom.org/library/communisation
Eclipse & Re-emergence of the communist movement - http://libcom.org/library/eclipse-re-emergence-communist-movement
On Self-organisation - http://libcom.org/library/self-organisation-is-the-first-act-of-the-revolution-it-then-becomes-an-obstacle-which-the-revolution-has-to-overcome
On Lip - http://libcom.org/library/lip-and-the-self-managed-counter-revolution-negation
Endnotes #1 - http://endnotes.org.uk/issues/1
SIC #1 - http://endnotes.org.uk/
Riff-Raff #8 - http://www.riff-raff.se/en/8/
Riff-Raff #9 - http://www.riff-raff.se/en/9/

[Brosa Luxemburg]

My biggest beef with insurrectionary anarchism is the disregard for class struggle and, instead, using an analysis of the "included" and "excluded".

[Ravachol]

My biggest beef with insurrectionary anarchism is the disregard for class struggle and, instead, using an analysis of the "included" and "excluded".

Well to some degree there is truth in that 'analysis' as the communisation milieu (and increasingly, the 'broader' ultra-left outside of that as well) makes similar observations on the increasing segment of a 'surplus proletariat' (which has been expelled from the productive sphere as a result of the chopping down of the guaranteed social reproduction integral to the composition of capital in most of the western world). The problem with 'insurrectionary anarchism' proper (ie. of the Italian-Spanish variety and its reception throughout the world) is that it is incredibly moralist about it. As if the 'excluded' somehow choose to be excluded and the 'included' (ie the stable core) are 'consumerist sheeple'. I mean it doesn't make sense to say someone is 'excluded' and attribute a moral high-ground to that as they aren't excluded from capital's grip (if only such a thing were possible!) but they're excluded from capital's 'stable' core. Lending some kind of moral weight to such a position is kind of like the endless attempts of academic post-autonomists trying to cook up a new 'revolutionary subject' (the 'immaterial worker', 'the general intellect', the 'multitude', the 'oh who gives a fuck') in the absence of an insurgent proletariat (and plain, under-theorized 'ultraleft orthodoxy' in that regard, ie. the proletariat is the revolutionary subject and so it will be on the grand day doesn't help much either).

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, when you talk about workers 'communising the products of their labour and ultimately seizing the means of production' you predicate this upon an 'organized proletariat as a proper counter power to capital'.

The problem here is twofold:

1) The premise of the communisation thesis (in the broadest sense, but specifically the milieu that includes Theorie Communiste, Endnotes, Blaumachen, Troploin, Riff-Raff, etc.) lies with the structural impossibility of the formation of a 'proper counter power to capital' and the impossibility (and undesirability, though the degree of normativism varies between different groups) of the proletariat organising itself as a klasse-fur-sich in the current epoch.

Any notion of the formation of an organised counter-power to capital which bases itself in the proletariat's role as the proletariat (ie. the affirmation of the proletarian condition) is invariably linked to the ascendant power of the proletariat within capitalism under formal subsumption. This ascendant power, which manifested itself through the expanding power of the unions, the formation of various workers' parties and the solidification of various 'gains' (all of which are commonly known as the now bygone "workers' movement") found its apex in the welfare state that was established in the wake of WWII, where the integration of the (guaranteed) social reproduction of the proletariat in the reproduction of capital was made possible by linking the proletariat's consumption to the expansion of capital. This period (from the early '50s to the late '60s) is commonly referred to as 'fordism' and is seen by some within the communisation milieu as the final solidification of the real subsumption of capital (though nuances on the formal/real distinction and warnings against strict periodisations should be taken into account). The crisis of fordism, which was interwoven with the "second assault of the proletariat on class society" (ie. the long global wave of unrest and insurrections from '68 till roughly '77) was solved in a manner that restructured the capital-relation in such a fashion that permanently wiped away the basis upon which its integrated social reproduction rested. There's many more factors regarding the dissection of the proletariat and the death of the workers' movement from 1914 all the way through the long '60s but the very notion of communisation is incompatible with the notion of an organised, self-affirming proletariat that establishes a stable, expanding ground for its counter-power (which, if we were to hold it up against normative standards, would end up affirming capital anyway as the proletariat is nothing but an aspect of capital).

So whereas some within the communisation milieu (eg. Dauve) might hold that communisation might have been a possibility during the 'epoch of the ascendant proletariat' (posing a unified 'counter power' on the basis of the proletarian condition), others hold that it is a possibility that has only been opened up as the result of the current restructuring of capital (eg. Theorie Communiste). Both, however, agree that the era of "workers' power" is over. Check out publications like Endnotes #1, SIC, Riff-Raff #8 and onwards for a more in-depth take on the matter.

2) When you talk about seizing the means of production that's inherently contradictory with the conception of communisation. The traditional 'seizure of the means of production', the taking over of the factories, machinery, etc. in short: the shift of the administration of the material base of capital from the bourgeoisie to a unified proletariat is something that the communisateurs see as a) impossible for all the above reasons b) undesirable as it, like the myth of 'self-management', entails nothing but a shift in the administration of capital, taking the old world as one finds it but putting it under the management of a different subject ends up reproducing the old world and all that entails. Building on Bordiga's critique of the factory councils, critiques of self-management by such publications as Bilan (on the matter of the spanish experience) or groups like Negation (on the matter of the Lip experience in France) and ultra-left critiques of councilism, communisation explicitly rejects the notion that communism is (or is preceded by) a set-piece seizure of the means of production. The halting of the reproduction of capital and the seizure of material wealth and space will form a part of the process of communisation, but it will not involve the construction of "organs of workers power" putting the machinery (in the literal and figurative sense of the word) of this world to work for "different goals". I suggest this text, for starters: http://libcom.org/library/communisation-vs-socialisation-suspended-step-communisation-theorie-communiste

Obviously i'm being a little blunt here and there's a lot of complex issues surrounding these matters but the general point is that such notions as "workers' power"/"klasse-fur-sich" and "the seizure of the means of production"/"self-management" are incompatible with communisation.

Some general reading materials:

What is communisation - http://libcom.org/library/communisation
Eclipse & Re-emergence of the communist movement - http://libcom.org/library/eclipse-re-emergence-communist-movement
On Self-organisation - http://libcom.org/library/self-organisation-is-the-first-act-of-the-revolution-it-then-becomes-an-obstacle-which-the-revolution-has-to-overcome
On Lip - http://libcom.org/library/lip-and-the-self-managed-counter-revolution-negation
Endnotes #1 - http://endnotes.org.uk/issues/1
SIC #1 - http://endnotes.org.uk/
Riff-Raff #8 - http://www.riff-raff.se/en/8/
Riff-Raff #9 - http://www.riff-raff.se/en/9/

Thanks :)

I guess I use the phrase "communise products of their labour" to indicate a process by which the proletariat begins to use the products of its labour socially as an escalation, i.e. taking food from a supermarket and distributing it etc etc.

I have a real hard time with this formal and real subsumption. I think I kind of understand them, but perhaps you could give a simple explanation of these concepts?

Thanks for the reading. In view of the communisation theory, what then do they believe the task of communists to be?

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, when you talk about workers 'communising the products of their labour and ultimately seizing the means of production' you predicate this upon an 'organized proletariat as a proper counter power to capital'.

The problem here is twofold:

1) The premise of the communisation thesis (in the broadest sense, but specifically the milieu that includes Theorie Communiste, Endnotes, Blaumachen, Troploin, Riff-Raff, etc.) lies with the structural impossibility of the formation of a 'proper counter power to capital' and the impossibility (and undesirability, though the degree of normativism varies between different groups) of the proletariat organising itself as a klasse-fur-sich in the current epoch.

Any notion of the formation of an organised counter-power to capital which bases itself in the proletariat's role as the proletariat (ie. the affirmation of the proletarian condition) is invariably linked to the ascendant power of the proletariat within capitalism under formal subsumption. This ascendant power, which manifested itself through the expanding power of the unions, the formation of various workers' parties and the solidification of various 'gains' (all of which are commonly known as the now bygone "workers' movement") found its apex in the welfare state that was established in the wake of WWII, where the integration of the (guaranteed) social reproduction of the proletariat in the reproduction of capital was made possible by linking the proletariat's consumption to the expansion of capital. This period (from the early '50s to the late '60s) is commonly referred to as 'fordism' and is seen by some within the communisation milieu as the final solidification of the real subsumption of capital (though nuances on the formal/real distinction and warnings against strict periodisations should be taken into account). The crisis of fordism, which was interwoven with the "second assault of the proletariat on class society" (ie. the long global wave of unrest and insurrections from '68 till roughly '77) was solved in a manner that restructured the capital-relation in such a fashion that permanently wiped away the basis upon which its integrated social reproduction rested. There's many more factors regarding the dissection of the proletariat and the death of the workers' movement from 1914 all the way through the long '60s but the very notion of communisation is incompatible with the notion of an organised, self-affirming proletariat that establishes a stable, expanding ground for its counter-power (which, if we were to hold it up against normative standards, would end up affirming capital anyway as the proletariat is nothing but an aspect of capital).

So whereas some within the communisation milieu (eg. Dauve) might hold that communisation might have been a possibility during the 'epoch of the ascendant proletariat' (posing a unified 'counter power' on the basis of the proletarian condition), others hold that it is a possibility that has only been opened up as the result of the current restructuring of capital (eg. Theorie Communiste). Both, however, agree that the era of "workers' power" is over. Check out publications like Endnotes #1, SIC, Riff-Raff #8 and onwards for a more in-depth take on the matter.

2) When you talk about seizing the means of production that's inherently contradictory with the conception of communisation. The traditional 'seizure of the means of production', the taking over of the factories, machinery, etc. in short: the shift of the administration of the material base of capital from the bourgeoisie to a unified proletariat is something that the communisateurs see as a) impossible for all the above reasons b) undesirable as it, like the myth of 'self-management', entails nothing but a shift in the administration of capital, taking the old world as one finds it but putting it under the management of a different subject ends up reproducing the old world and all that entails. Building on Bordiga's critique of the factory councils, critiques of self-management by such publications as Bilan (on the matter of the spanish experience) or groups like Negation (on the matter of the Lip experience in France) and ultra-left critiques of councilism, communisation explicitly rejects the notion that communism is (or is preceded by) a set-piece seizure of the means of production. The halting of the reproduction of capital and the seizure of material wealth and space will form a part of the process of communisation, but it will not involve the construction of "organs of workers power" putting the machinery (in the literal and figurative sense of the word) of this world to work for "different goals".

I shared your reply with a comrade of mine, in fact the person who wrote this: Terrain for an encounter: social anarchism and communisation. (http://libcom.org/blog/terrain-encounter-social-anarchism-communisation-08112012) His response is below. I wondered if you had thoughts on it:


To me the issue is purely semantic here. When we say "form a counter-power" do we mean it in the traditional Leftist sense of representative organs of the class or do we mean a more negative expression of class action and restraints? Equally, when we say "seize the means of production" do we mean set up factory councils to administrate the current economy or do we mean a reorganisation of the economy along communist lines via the alternative organisation of the basis of social wealth?

The idea that:

"The halting of the reproduction of capital and the seizure of material wealth is part of the process of communisation, but it will not involve the construction of 'organs of workers power' putting the machinery (in the literal and figurative sense of the word) of this world to work for 'different goals'" is essentially what is said in the CA intro to the communisation text (if you read between the lines).

So what really is the source of disagreement here?

[precarian]

The statement given in court by anarchist Haris Hatzmichelakis entitled "Never Again Unarmed" is a good piece of writing detailing the rationale behind insurrectionary action.