Monsieur Dupont/Frere Dupont/ Le Garcon Dupont and associated writings

[BIXX]

How familiar is everyone with them? I am curious because I kinda find them a boring read but they do offer some good insights, but I have some shit if critique from them as well. I'm currently reading NihCom and about to read species being, I don't have anything by le garcon Dupont but yeah. Is anyone very familiar with their work?

Partially I think they don't go far enough, as to take their nihilism down a notch from the likes of Bædan and Attentat. They seem to reiterate the same thing a bunch in NihCom and it's associated appendices- that we can't raise consciousness and even if we could it wouldn't matter, political struggle is bad whilst economic is good, and blind self-interest will lead the proles to capitalist crisis, which then opens the possibility of revolution. Idk, it just didn't seem like a nihilist piece of work to me, and more if a critical communist piece, which IMO makes it far less interesting.

[Sinister Intents]

Thanks for presenting me with more reading opportunities!!!

[Devrim]

I'm pretty familiar with him. We used to work together.

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

There's a thread from 2005 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-consciousness-t35205/index.html?t=35205&highlight=Monsieur+Dupont) which might interesting. Doesn't really relate to your topic of discussion, but it might be worth looking at it.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I've only read nihilist communism and I think maybe a short article. I think their critique of activism/activists is correct even if its not the most original. The strategy they put forth of workers from 'key sectors' basically grinding the economy to a halt without the need for others sounds great, but the claims that it would happen out of self interest alone isn't very convincing. It's been a few years since I read it so I could be misremembering.

What left the biggest impression on me was their suggestion that 'pro-revolutionaries' should concentrate on suppressing reactionary socialist/marxist groups in the event of a revolutionary event rather than trying to gain a leadership position amongst anyone.

[Thirsty Crow]

How familiar is everyone with them? I am curious because I kinda find them a boring read but they do offer some good insights, but I have some shit if critique from them as well. I'm currently reading NihCom and about to read species being, I don't have anything by le garcon Dupont but yeah. Is anyone very familiar with their work?

Partially I think they don't go far enough, as to take their nihilism down a notch from the likes of Bædan and Attentat. They seem to reiterate the same thing a bunch in NihCom and it's associated appendices- that we can't raise consciousness and even if we could it wouldn't matter, political struggle is bad whilst economic is good, and blind self-interest will lead the proles to capitalist crisis, which then opens the possibility of revolution. Idk, it just didn't seem like a nihilist piece of work to me, and more if a critical communist piece, which IMO makes it far less interesting.

The nihilism of the work is a particular kind, or better yet it is no recognizable ethical or philosophical nihilism at all but a critique of political-ideological activity. It is a critical communist piece of course since the basic premise of it all is the acceptance of class struggle and communist social transformation.

Haven't read it in quite a while, and from memory I can say it's a good exercise in bending the stick and questioning what is often taken for granted by communists (for instance the role of counsciousness). It also offers a kind of a strategic position (not actually strategic in that it could ever become the basis for communists' activity as communists), if I remember correctly, of the "essential proletariat". I'd have to go through it again to be able to say something more concrete.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's also probably quite outdated now, no?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It didn't seem so outdated when I read it, a rebellion on the part of the workers they focus on would still be catastrophic to global capitalism. Their critique of activism and consciousness raising looks like its still accurate as well.

[lesbian]

DEATH COMES AS THE HARSH VICTORY OF THE LAW OF OUR ANCESTORS OVER THE DIMENSION OF OUR BECOMING

listing myself as a nihilist this should be my area of expertise but admittedly I haven't actually read any of their works :o (my dyslexia mostly prevents me from reading anything more than scant internet discussions, so I can rarely critically comment on published works) - but yeah they are a lot less severe than the authors of the stolen work baeden, I imagine mainly to do with the class realities that differentiate the authors :P

From my friends animated discussions of the works, though, I have come to greatly admire the honestly of Dupont, which is what compels me towards nihilism above all other discourses and their romances.


It also offers a kind of a strategic position [...] if I remember correctly, of the "essential proletariat"Yeah, for Dupont the revolution has to come from workers in particular positions - what older theorists would have called sites of resistance, for Dupont this is especially the transport worker (the pivotal importance of transport workers in historical revolutions makes this ring especially true, I think)

PS. If you're interested in similar reading from like almost a century earlier, check out Sam Moss's 'the Impotence of the Revolutionary Group' - it's pretty gritty nihilism for what it is, and a lot of Dupont's theoretical premises can be traced to this work.


It's also probably quite outdated now, no?

Why would you say that? Their work is fairly recent.

[BIXX]

I'm pretty familiar with him. We used to work together.

Devrim

Which one? It's two individuals.


The nihilism of the work is a particular kind, or better yet it is no recognizable ethical or philosophical nihilism at all but a critique of political-ideological activity.

Well, I would argue they didn't go far enough in their "nihilism", in that case. MIT feels like an incomplete nihilism. Otherwise I agree with what you said here.


I've only read nihilist communism and I think maybe a short article. I think their critique of activism/activists is correct even if its not the most original. The strategy they put forth of workers from 'key sectors' basically grinding the economy to a halt without the need for others sounds great, but the claims that it would happen out of self interest alone isn't very convincing. It's been a few years since I read it so I could be misremembering.

What left the biggest impression on me was their suggestion that 'pro-revolutionaries' should concentrate on suppressing reactionary socialist/marxist groups in the event of a revolutionary event rather than trying to gain a leadership position amongst anyone.

Why does that claim about self interest not convince you? Following worker interest to it's logical conclusion would obviously lead to a crisis in capital- doesn't mean in will happen ever though.

[Devrim]

Which one? It's two individuals.

The one who was referred to as 'Le Garcon Dupont'. I'm mentioned in some of their stuff. I never knew the other fella.

Devrim

[Zukunftsmusik]

Well, I would argue they didn't go far enough in their "nihilism", in that case. MIT feels like an incomplete nihilism. Otherwise I agree with what you said here.

What is MIT and what exactly do you mean by them not going far enough? How far is far enough?

[BIXX]

Sorry, MIT was a typo. I meant "it", and in NihCom.

In their piece they reject political struggles in favor of economic ones. I felt they should have rejected economic ones as well. Idk, I just felt disappointed, after reading the likes of bædan and Attentat.