nihilist communism...

I'm in the middle of the 'nihilist communism' text, and I gotta say... this is one of the most insightful pieces about communism that I've read in a long time. Why the name 'nihilist communism,' though? Is it 'nihilist' only insofar as it advocates the negation of all forms of existence under capitalism (and all current models of revolution), or is it nihilist in a more specific sense?

Anyway, thanks for creating this user group and linking to the text.

i think the latter, in that it is essentially arguing nothing (there are no proposals for change, new platforms, different organization being put forward for example), while, as you say, negating all current models of revolution. i think it exists primarily as a critique of the pro-revolutionary milieu.

Whilst i understand what you mean when you frame it is a critique rather than something like political tendency, it's not as if 'the critics' come to their points of criticism by accident - nor are they aliens visitors yet to have contact with the history of revolutionary ideas.

Can links not be made between 'nihilist communism' and the ideas/criticisms of earlier writers such as Raoul Vaneigem? There certainly is something in the tone (from what i have read so far at least) that seems new, but yet quite familiar.

well yes, if i implied their critique was coming from outside the revolutionary movement i didn't mean to. their ideas are very much based on their own experiences within said movement, as well as working from earlier positions. i think they have more in common with the councilists than vaneigem, but then again i haven't read much of his work so i couldn't say. certainly any similarities would probably be more than coincidental.

One more question.

If one accepts this critique, are they still technically a communist/anarchist/marxist? That was only a half serious question, but does M. Dupont suggest separation from the contemporary pro-revolutionary milieu? And from the ideologies that are interred therein? (Apologies in advance if this would be answered easily by reading more of the book : p).

as far as i can tell they don't propose a separation, but for pro-revolutionaries to be aware of their failings and the limits of their movements and to perhaps figure out new strategies and practices from that vantage point instead of continually recycling the ghosts of the past.