Prologue

The prologue informs us of the basic premise of the book, viz. that capitalism is reaching a final crisis. This crisis takes on the characteristic of a confrontation between the police and those resisting them. The media backdrop will be sugar pop, as significant events go unreported. Academics will attempt to understand, but get it totally wrong. The authors claim to sort of be writing what society is thinking, to put it plainly.

Not necessarily a very thorough review. I apologize. I sort of gave the prologue a skim, but I have read it before. I realize I'm leaving a lot out, but it's just a start to get the ball rolling. Thoughts? Am I setting the bar too low?

The flames of November 2005 still flicker in everyone’s minds. Those first joyous fires were the baptism of a decade full of promise.
(..)
Many different profiles can be found among the arrested, with little that unites them besides a hatred for existing society – not class, race, or even neighborhood. What was new wasn’t the “banlieue revolt,” since that was already going on in the 80s, but the break with its established forms. These assailants no longer listen to anybody, neither to their Big Brothers and Big Sisters, nor to the community organizations charged with overseeing the return to normal.

A recurring theme in TCI (and the works of the Invisible Committee in general) seems to be a 'revolt against normality' and an increasing profileration of hatred against authority. The Banlieu riots of 2005 had a very diffuse character indeed and the small-scale 'social rupture' that is presented originated in a convergence of material conditions and a disgust with traditional authority. But here lies the problem for me. Although large segments of the revolting youth rejected any authority but that of their affinity-groups, a lot of these groups reproduced the same models of authority the state functions on inside their affinity-groups. The prevelance of gang-culture and the accompanying authoritarian pack-structures are no promise of a generalised insurrection against domination. Whilst this might change (and I suspect it will), we should not make the mistake of seeing these kind of riots as the embryonic insurrection itself. Rather, we should see them as (no pun intended) an 'image from the future', a vague spectre of what is to come with the breakdown of civil order.

As a pro-revolutionary milieu we should not, however, be seduced by spontaneism, we should consistently develop our own networks and forms of agitation on an anti-authoritarian, communist basis to spread amongst these kind of mini-ruptures. Spontaneism will leave these revolts with nothing but the reproduction of dominant structures.

There will be no social solution to the present situation.
(..)
The social feeling has already evaporated too much for that.

What is basically argued in this section is that social cohesion is desintegrating. Social constructs such as 'the republic', 'the nation' and 'the welfare state' serving to bind the interests of the ruling classes to those of the exploited ones are slowly desintegrating and making place for full-out social war. This is important since what TCI prefigures is an end to 'social peace', class collaboration and social constructs that bind intrinsically opposed interests.

As an attempted solution, the pressure to ensure that nothing happens, together with police surveillance of the territory, will only intensify.
(..)
They will illuminate the whole planet with their glaring neon lights, as the patrols of the BAC and private security companies (i.e. paramilitary units) proliferate under the umbrella of an increasingly shameless judicial protection.

While this sounds rather cyberpunkish, the breakdown of the traditional 'law' and the obliteration of the 'social face' of order and authority and it's replacement with naked force is something I've suspected for a long time. The increasing profileration of private security and even private military companies points in this direction. Similarly, the 'ghettoisation' of society and it's breakdown along class-lines are already prefigured in the increasing profileration of 'banlieus' and 'gated communities'. All these are exactly what TCI is talking about.

Good starting sentence. The "the spectre of que se vayan todos" is a nice hat-tip to the Communist Manifesto.

Those who still vote seem to have no other intention than to desecrate the ballot box by voting as a pure act of protest. We’re beginning to suspect that it’s only against voting itself that people continue to vote.

Whilst I agree that the circle of representation has come to a close, i disagree with this. There are still some chumps out there who actually vote for the cappie parties, I think TCI is getting ahead of itself here.

Nothing we’re being shown is adequate to the situation, not by far.

although this is bang on.

Viz Ravachol´s comment of the nature of the banlieu riots, I think I agree. There is a "political charater in the negation of politics" but i don´t believe one can ever fully negate politics. these groups used a form of leadership structure, and i bet there was a capitalist / patriarchial mindset to some degree, especially evident in the gang culture. the folks who did this were not some vanguard of a post capitalist society.

We need to spread, as Ravachol said, our own ideas to these groups, opposing the ideas of the ruling class.

There will be no social solution to the present situation.

I see this as meaning that the present order will not be capable comming up with a solution (being the problem and what-not) but no social solution? surely communism is a social solution? I think the rest of this paragraph basically says that the present order is doomed, its a top heavy dinosaur ect ect.