a seasonal message from the other dupont

A Seasonal Message From The Other Dupont

Our call to do nothing “was, and remains, a provocation”.

From the Glossary section of the book, Nihilist Communism:

“Do Nothing: we came up with this during the activism debate at the beginning of our MD venture. It was, and remains, a provocation, we think it is important to say whatever it is possible to say within the pro-revolutionary milieu both to bring new terms of reference in and to illuminate the existing and usually unquestioned conventions. ‘Do nothing’ is an immediate reflection of ‘do something’ and its moral apparatus, which is how we characterised the activist scene. ‘Do something’ is an agitated reflex to stimuli, a theorisation of turning yourself into a bridge [we do not miss the irony and humour inherent in the choosing of our collective name, Dupont, here], there is a perceived urgency and a presupposition that the doer is doing something important but ‘do something’ also suggests ‘do anything’, a desperate injunction to press every button to save the world. We disliked the connotations of ‘do something’, and were aware that all the other stuff wasn’t getting talked about in the rush to make protest appear on the streets. ‘Do nothing’ means thinking about the reproduction of authoritarian and capitalist forms within this political milieu, it also ties in with our notion of revolutionary subjectivity and what is appropriate for the pro-revolutionary role.”

Nihilism

Our use of the word nihilism is specific to our project of finding new ways to engage both with events and the pro-revolutionary milieu. From the Glossary section of the book, Nihilist Communism:

“Nihilism: literally a belief in nothing. In basic terms it means being dispassionate about the pro-revolutionary movement and not getting sucked into other people’s pipe-dreams. What is in question here is not the material world itself nor indeed sensuous existence; it is not at all about indifference. We use nihilism as a description of a proper attitude or stance taken up in relation to the world. What we reject as inappropriate to the present moment is belief, which is a mental attitude that places an affinity for images above life experience. […] In place of belief we assert the primacy of the senses arranged about a critical attitude. Therefore, while we are strategic communists with reference to the future and its commencement in the breakdown of capitalism, we are, for the present, tactical nihilists. This gives us the freedom not to be misled by all the solutions to social conflict that are currently generated by the capitalist base [the false oppositions to the established order that are repeatedly taken from bourgeois ideology and promoted by those who claim to be anti-capitalist]. Nihilism is an armour that protects us from credulity and the complicity of the bad faith pro-revolutionary movement.”

Further Clarifications

Since the 1980’s I have argued that pro-revolutionaries should forsake their ‘middle class’ jobs, or their welfare bohemianism, and spend time in factory conditions. We have done this ourselves, both before our ‘politicisation’, and, consciously, on purpose, after it. We do not say that you need to spend forever in this situation, but get enough experience to enable you to understand what is involved (of course, it does not necessarily follow that one will develop ones views during such an experience).

I have produced articles with such titles as, ‘Get a job!’ (meaning: get an unskilled job in a labour intensive workplace and industry, in which one is supervised rather than supervising, managed rather than managing). We think that the pro-revolutionary milieu should get off their backsides and do something positive and logical. Our view is that learning is best done through the process of doing, and observing honestly; and then reflecting intelligently on the things you do and what those around you are doing. Instead of always jumping in to put your own point of view across make sure you listen and observe carefully before making a comment or asking a question. We always have more to learn, and it often comes from the most unlikely of places.

We have also argued that pro-revolutionaries should train themselves to write and speak so that they are really able to make contributions to discussion, debate, meetings, etc. Neither of us is an extrovert, but we have forced ourselves to stand up and be counted (luckily, when I stood up, no one noticed me…).

Later in this article I come to a point where I quote someone describing me as a “wrist-slittingly awful donothingist”. Ha! I love it! I haven’t done much in my time, but I have done a little, which may, or may not, be worth considering before such intemperate assertions are made. I include this list not to show some of the things I have done, but to show how it is possible for those who describe themselves as libertarian, or anarchist, or communist (I mean those people who often say they want everyone to think for themselves), to mislead others with their forthright and unsubstantiated views. These are some of the groups I have been involved in (by which I mean being a proper member) and publications I have produced: Reading (it’s a town/city, not a verb) Anarchists; Anarchist Communist Federation (great fun, lovely people, fond memories); Tottenham Claimant’s Union (I learned a lot from my brief time here working with the wonderful Dave Morris); Thames Valley Class Struggle Anarchists; Communication Worker’s Group (best job I ever had was being a postman!); ‘Anti Exchange and Mart’; ‘Anarchist Communism or Death!’; ‘Proletarian Gob’ (the six issues of this were liberally illustrated with the exceptional graphic talents of Paul Petard); Subversion; ‘What’s Wrong With John Redwood?’; ‘Spoofversion’; Anarchist Federation (less fun than the first time, but a great experience); ‘Corpse of the Millennium’; Monsieur Dupont (words cannot express the admiration I have for the work of the other Monsieur Dupont); ‘Nihilist Communism’; some of my writing has also been put onto Libcom.org. Of course, around all the items on the list above, I went on demo’s, wrote leaflets, wrote for the group papers, sold papers at demo’s, in the streets and at shopping centres (“Get ’em while they’re ’ot, they’re lovely!”), went to millions of meetings, got chased by police on horses. Little, insignificant to anyone but me, cherished and humorous memories are: disguising myself as a council office worker (clipboard and tie, to gain access to a council building before a Tottenham Claimants Union demo stormed the building – in the end the ‘storming’, and my presence as an infiltrator, wasn’t necessary as they failed to lock the doors in time) before we ran around in the building and were eventually ejected by the police; opened up a couple of council houses (social housing), that had been sealed with huge steel doors, in the middle of the night in North London; stayed up all night producing the ACF paper Liberation, before taking it across London to the famous printers at Freedom. Smoked vast quantities of cigarettes. (If anyone reading this recognises themselves in the above then realise that I hold you in the highest esteem, really I mean love, for the brief but good times we had together, despite the fact that we can no longer work together.) I spent several years in the Post Office, delivering mail. Apart from being part of the ‘rank-and-file’ grouping, the CWG – which was so interesting because of the distilling of, and dissonance between the differing political perspectives; and also because of the differences that caused the dissolution of the group, which taught me, at least, so much – I was involved in a couple of strikes, and regularly resigned and rejoined the semi-official union committee at my workplace. But this list and this kind of listing is pathetic; others would be able to trump me in descriptions of their heroic endeavours at every turn! I feel forced to write it because I seem to be being attacked on the grounds that I have done nothing at all, and advocate doing nothing at all. A fabrication of who I am, who we are, is being created. For what purpose is this imaginary construct being built? Is it to discredit us in the eyes of others so that no one will bother reading our work? This is probably happening because those who would post such ‘comments’ are unable to properly engage with what we have written over the years: they have not got to the point, as I would see it, where they can understand what we are saying.

More important than any of this meagre activity was the fact that I/we began to ask simple and obvious questions, such as: if the approach of communism relies on the accumulation of numbers of people who want communism to happen, and if we have been hard at work trying to accumulate these numbers over the years, why is that the numbers are not increasing? Our answer to this problem was that we could either continue to spin our wheels in the same rut, or we could try other tactics, and other ways of thinking. We also looked at the way changes happen in the world. We asked if it was people who made the world or whether it was the world that made us. Is the world a cup made by us or is the world a cup which contains us? We looked at events in history and we realised that the closest humanity has ever come to removing capitalism was during and immediately after World War One, and the reason for this was because in the enormous economic breakdown that occurred in various countries a huge number of people briefly saw the opportunity to live differently. These people were not politicos, they were not anarchists or communists, they were ‘ordinary’ people who experienced the turning upside down of their world. They did not have a plan. Those who did have a plan were the politicos, the anarchists, the communists, the leftists – and it was these people who were then briefly thrust into leadership roles. Unfortunately, in every situation, there were not enough nay-sayers, not enough people who had a clear idea about how so very many of these new leaders would sell-out, or would side with capitalism in the end. There were not enough ‘kronstadters’. Too many pro-revolutionaries were simply confused by events and offered nothing useful, or worse, went with the leader-led flow that was busy recuperating capitalism. Of course, it is true to say that WW1 did not provide enough of an economic breakdown for capitalism to be removed, but still, it is interesting to see how events unfolded to the extent that they did.

continued...

Interesting, but I disagree with it on several points.

there is a perceived urgency and a presupposition that the doer is doing something important but ‘do something’ also suggests ‘do anything’,
a desperate injunction to press every button to save the world.

No it does not. Depending on your discours you select the actions that you consider beneficial towards the end goal. Suggesting one or more of those actions ought to be taken doesn't suggest doing 'anything'.

‘Do nothing’ means thinking about the reproduction of authoritarian and capitalist forms within this political milieu, it also ties in with our notion of revolutionary subjectivity and what is appropriate for the pro-revolutionary role.”

Obviously we ought to avoid the reproductoin of authoritarianism and bourgoisie structures within our movement, but I fail to see how the catchphrase 'do nothing' suits such a logic.

What we reject as inappropriate to the present moment is belief, which is a mental attitude that places an affinity for images above life experience. […] In place of belief we assert the primacy of the senses arranged about a critical attitude.

Although I adhere to the idea the experiences and struggles of everyday life and material needs are the motor of revolutionary activity, it isn't that simple.
We should be wary of the fact that our 'senses' and experiences are being filtered through the lense of bourgoisie society and our own subjective analytical framework. Experiences alone, without ties to ideological analysis of social mechanics, cannot be a motor for revolution. If this were the case revolution would already have happened.

If I misinterpreted that statement, my apologies.

Since the 1980’s I have argued that pro-revolutionaries should forsake their ‘middle class’ jobs, or their welfare bohemianism, and spend time in factory conditions. We have done this ourselves, both before our ‘politicisation’, and, consciously, on purpose, after it. We do not say that you need to spend forever in this situation, but get enough experience to enable you to understand what is involved (of course, it does not necessarily follow that one will develop ones views during such an experience).

Although I agree with the point of view that class struggle can only be understood fully through experiencing it and the subjectivities that are formed BY experiencing it are fudamental to our discours, I dislike the use of the term 'middle class jobs'. This implies only the grumpy, grease-smeared factory manual laborer is a 'true worker' and those who engage in immaterial labor are any less. Not only do I take this as a personal offense, it serves class analysis no good. I do agree certain jobs (Ie. management-related jobs, productivity-enforcers,etc) serve a function distinct from production and are a function of capital rather than of labor, but they are part of a different class I guess (although I'm not fully clear on that issue yet).

We think that the pro-revolutionary milieu should get off their backsides and do something positive and logical. Our view is that learning is best done through the process of doing, and observing honestly; and then reflecting intelligently on the things you do and what those around you are doing.

A good example of this is the swedish Post-Operaist group 'Kämpa Tillsammans'

More important than any of this meagre activity was the fact that I/we began to ask simple and obvious questions, such as: if the approach of communism relies on the accumulation of numbers of people who want communism to happen, and if we have been hard at work trying to accumulate these numbers over the years, why is that the numbers are not increasing? Our answer to this problem was that we could either continue to spin our wheels in the same rut, or we could try other tactics, and other ways of thinking.

Which is obviously very welcome and needed. How do you relate this to the article you posted here? What are your views on this BCBM?

We also looked at the way changes happen in the world. We asked if it was people who made the world or whether it was the world that made us.

I don't think those two are mutually exclusive. I think change is a process of influence in all directions, from all directions.

These people were not politicos, they were not anarchists or communists, they were ‘ordinary’ people who experienced the turning upside down of their world.

I object to this for various reasons.
First of all, a large number of them were self-identified politicos and had a more or less clear view of politics and the struggle ahead.
Secondly, and more importantly, by their behavior, through strikes, direct action, the formation of worker's councils, they behaved like Anarchists or Communists and followed those lines, whether conciously or not. An Anarchist by any other name, is still an Anarchist.

They did not have a plan. Those who did have a plan were the politicos, the anarchists, the communists, the leftists – and it was these people who were then briefly thrust into leadership roles.

Again, not necissarily. Developping a clear political strategy and coherent vision isn't the same as enforcing it. Neither is it the same as 'just offering it up as advice'. When one develops a political philosophy and, as a derivative, a political strategy, it is the guideline according to which one acts and according to which one struggles with others. This is by no means a problem. The problem arises when this political philosophy is seen as dogma and isn't given feedback from the experiences of everyday life.

“Communist revolution will never be just the product of free will. Capitalism is the mutual involvement of capital and labour, and the stages and crises of that involvement give the general framework of the proletarian movement. Not everything is possible at any given time.

I agree with this statement. However, this is not an excuse for determinism of any kind. Free will is most certainly a core factor in social dynamic.
The core reason for this is that, as may Operaists and Autonomist Marxist theorists have argued, the primacy of the struggle lies with the working class. It is the working class that, through it's activities as the sole productive force of society, forces Capital to react to it. The free will of the working class thus is an important factor in the mechanics of class struggle.

Critical moments give opportunities: it depends on the proletarians, it depends on us to exploit these capabilities. Nothing guarantees the coming of a communist revolution, nor its success if it comes.

Again, I agree. We must avoid determinism and the idea that 'things will work out anyway'. And precisely for that reason we should maximize our efforts in the struggle to have the biggest possible advantage during those Critical moments.

This brick wall (in front of revolutionaries) is the fact that events will shape people’s consciousness; events will make people act; consciousness is determined by the material structure of our lives; mass changes in consciousness come after changes in the material base of society.

Which is not at all a guarantee that this will lead to revolution. And precisely that is the reason political work and the raising of class conciousness is so important.

However, MD's argument is not about consumption habits at all, it is a meditation on Otto Rühle's assertion that 'Only in the factory is the worker of today a real proletarian, and as such a revolutionary within the meaning of the proletarian-socialist revolution. Outside the factory he is a petty-bourgeois, involved in a petty-bourgeois milieu and middle-class habits of life, dominated by petty-bourgeois ideology

This resembles the early origins of Operaismo, which focussed on the mass laborer in the factory alone and had almost the same analysis on the conditions outside of the factory. Especially among the early theorists of Operaismo, grouped around the Quaderni Rossi paper, this view was widespread.

They didn't abandon it for no reason however. As Operaismo evolved (with the formation of groups like Potere Operaio and Autonomia Operaio) the theory of the 'social factory' was introduced. In short, the 'social factory' theory suggested that due to Capital's expansion upon it's own 'inside' and the extension of the logic of dominance prevelant to the Capital's primary model of control (the factory) to society at large, the distinction between 'the factory' and society is increasingly blurry. This ties in with Foucault's observations on the transposing of the power structures within prisons which were applied to other social institutes such as the school, the barracks and eventually the factory.

'The social factory' theory states that society is increasingly restructured to become an integral part of the production process, rather than the factory being 'a part of society'. Reproduction, social relations, 'public health' and all those issues are related to the factory and how 'efficient' the social factory is in providing workers (disciplined, 'healthy to work',etc) for the maximal capital accumulation.
This is obviously opposed to the idea that all action outside of the factory are 'petit-bourgois'. Sure, class conciousness and the intensity of class struggle is lower outside of the factory, but that doesn't mean class struggle is ABSENT there, on the contrary.
It seems to me that MD is re-inventing the Operaist wheel and I think sooner or later MD will arrive at pretty much the same conclusions the old staff of Quaderni Rossi arrived at. The purely economical-workerist position MD has taken isn't that new and is, in my eyes, severly lacking.

I do like the attempt to re-analyze our movement and struggles from an iconoclast position though, that's always a good thing.

Which is obviously very welcome and needed. How do you relate this to the article you posted here? What are your views on this BCBM?

i'm a complicated individual...

i posted the "remembering the stakes" article because i thought it would be of some interest to the more traditional leftist types here, and because i don't see any harm in what they're suggesting, ie actually interacting with people. i find more value in much of what dupont is saying though, particularly about stepping back and "doing nothing" as a way to reflect on strategy and determine new tactics and ways of existing and orienting ourselves to the struggle against capital. i tend to agree more with their ideas re: the accumulation of pro-revolutionaries in that i don't think the revolution will be made by the masses adopting communist ideas as most on the left imagine. i think its more likely that pro-revolutionaries will have a role to play in some places, but material conditions will be the primary factor that forces the situation into revolution and spreads "communist consciousness."

i wouldn't say i agree with md's ideas in whole though, and am more drawn to the ideas around tiqqun and some left communists like camatte than what seems to be the almost total pessimism of the monsieurs dupont. what i like about md, though, is that their stances are provocative and i think if given proper consideration and reflection by the left would yield interesting results. unfortunately i think the tendency is more to try and play up the most outrageous parts to discredit them, while ignoring the very real problems they raise.

A good example of this is the swedish Post-Operaist group 'Kämpa Tillsammans'

i will check this out when i have some time, thank you for the link. from the titles alone it looks very interesting.

i'm a complicated individual...

I already suspected that

i tend to agree more with their ideas re: the accumulation of pro-revolutionaries in that i don't think the revolution will be made by the masses adopting communist ideas as most on the left imagine.

Revolution, in my eyes, is a process guided by will, originating in material conditions. I reject material determinism and determinism of any kind really.
Class struggle movements have been and will be hijacked by reformists and reactionaries. I oppose the idea that Class Struggle 'guides itself'. This does not mean I favor a vanguard of any kind. What I do favor is proper class-strugglist organisation, if only to prevent class struggle from developping into reformist sectorial interest struggles. The accumulation of pro-revolutionaries serves this interest and is necessary to support and intensify class struggle, not to 'convince the working class of communist ideas'. Participating in class struggle consequently along class lines will lead to communist behavior. Again, the saying 'A communist by any other name is still a communist' goes here as well.

i wouldn't say i agree with md's ideas in whole though, and am more drawn to the ideas around tiqqun and some left communists like camatte than what seems to be the almost total pessimism of the monsieurs dupont.

I'm not a scholar on Tiqqun and Camatte but from what I've gathered they share the notion Capital's dominance cover's every inch of human activity and hence every participation in society produces and reproduces Capital.

First of all, I reject the idea that Capital monolithic. Capital contains many internal contradictions due to the fact that it subjects a diffuse set of human activity to it's logic and produces structures to manage all this to it's own benefit. Also, processes and institutes established by or subjected to Capital's logic in eras where production and reproduction of Capital followed a different logic, a different set of rules and a different composition often co-exist to a certain degree with newer structures, often leading to conflict. An example is the social construct of 'national unity' that served to subject class struggle to the interests of the national bourgoisie and it's current conflict with international capital.

Secondly, I reject the idea Capital is present in every human activity. Capital's dominance is often imposed on, rather than internal to, human activity. Obviously the internalisation process subjects activity to Capital's logic, but I don't think that means all activity consists of ONLY Capital's logic. As stated in my first point, Capital contains my internal contradictions. I believe we can shake of Capital's logic, if only gradually yes.

Thirdly, the idea that Capital is a monolithic and omnipresent force quickly leads to Camatte's later position (which happened with Wildcat (UK) as well) of primitivism and a rejection of society and civilisation as 'infected with Capital's logic' alltogether. Obviously, this isn't gonna serve the cause of labor or humanity.

i don't really have much to add, except that your critique of tiqqun/camatte in the last few paragraphs would probably only apply to camatte. i think tiqqun takes a bit of a different stance.

cammatte writes some really engaging stuff. i obviously like more the earlier camatte though. the latter cammatte was a trend within a lot of revolutionaries, especially french ones, to argue that the working class has been totally integrated to capital. i think it had to do with the failure of the 60s waves of struggles, because at that time everyone thought revolution was around the corner.

i think your post makes some good points but

There's a trend in insurrectionism

i wouldn't consider dupont as having much to do with any of the modern insurrectionary currents.

While you state some thoughts I've been toying with recently I've some comments.

There's a trend in insurrectionism that sees the capitalist crisis, or social rupture, as the moment of revolution, but they often neglect to see that this is only a moment of potential, and one the depends greatly on class consciousness.

This is more or less the conclusion i've come to. While I agree with Mr. Dupont's argument that revolutionary potential is born out of material conditions and not out of idealist propaganda, a strong working-class organisation will have to be present (in whatever form) along with developped class conciousness.

socialism), the focus has shifted to individual moments of 'potential liberation.' These individual moments have gone by many names including situations (SI), communes (TCI), temporary autonomous zone, etc.

The trouble with some of these concepts is the fact that the praxis of these theories usually results in exactly the problem Mr. Dupont is arguing about, 'revolutionary ghettos' consisting of idealist activists completely unconnected with the working class, usually abandoning it through seperation from civil society. While i'm a strong proponent of revolutionary counter-culture (in a sense of alter-culture really, like the anarchist schooling projects, the theatre entertainment groups, soup-kitchens and ale houses run by some syndicalist movements in the late 1800's and the early 1900's), this culture should resemble a new society in the shell of the old, whilst still remaining connected to the everyday life of the working class and, more importantly, being accessable to it.

As an activist from the Netherlands I've plenty of experience with the praxis of 'autonomous zones' in the form of the Dutch 'Vrijplaatsen' and the German 'Freiraumen' in squats. And while I'm active in some myself, the biggest problem with these places is the fact that they only reproduce stereotypical counter-culture in the form of marginalised youth-cultures (Ie. heavy drug use, punk and metal subcultures and a general Crust attitude). Alter-culture eminating from these 'revolutionary ghettos' usually comes in the form of marginalised youth-culture, which is completely cut loose from working-class reality.

Now i'm not advocating conforming to 'mainstream social norms', for from that, that'd be the reproduction of capital's hegemony. What I'm advocating is that alter-culture should offer alternatives to existing social life accesible and desired by the working class, albeit with a political character. The pro-revolutionary miliue must never again make the mistake to seperate itself from the working class like it did in the aftermath of the '70s and '80s movements.

A more viable alternative would be the Italian Operaist interpretation of autonomous zones where in working-class neighbourhoods where, for example, the rent was increased extremly the entire neighbourhood went on rent-strike and took over the neighbourhood establishing their own councils, food-kitchens, garbage collection services,etc, Ie. creating a miniature glimpse of socialism within the shell of the old society.

But this is only possible through strong organisation (which is not the same as hierarchical or authoritarian organisation, mind you!) and the right material conditions.
I believe the pro-revolutionary milieu should 'build the movement', but a movement focussed on meeting the material demands of the working class and establishing working-class autonomy as an organic 'party of the proletariat' that helps them improve the quality of their life when the material conditions demand that. Instead of focussing only on the accumulation of pro-revoltionaries.

I believe the pro-revolutionary milieu should 'build the movement', but a movement focussed on meeting the material demands of the working class and establishing working-class autonomy as an organic 'party of the proletariat' that helps them improve the quality of their life when the material conditions demand that. Instead of focussing only on the accumulation of pro-revoltionaries.

i think monsieur dupont might be rubbing off on you. ;-)

i think monsieur dupont might be rubbing off on you. ;-)

Despite my initial doubts and my hesitation at Dupont's pessimistic tone I must say I've found the texts in this group extremely eye-opening. They also tie in pretty well with my increasing orientation towards Italian Post-Operaism (in the style of Potere Operaio before the 'militarisation of the movement' started and the armed groups took over).