The Coming Insurrection or the Arrival of Suicidal Nonsense?
A Review...
"The book you hold in your hands has become the principle piece of evidence in an
anti-terrorism case in
on November 11 2008, mostly in the
‘criminal association for the purposes of terrorist activity' on the grounds that they
were to have participated in the sabotage of overhead electrical lines on
national railways. Although only scanty circumstantial evidence has been presented
against the nine, the French Interior Minister has publicly associated them with
the emergent threat of an ‘ultra-left' movement, taking care to single out this
book, described as a ‘manual for terrorism,' which they are accused of authoring.
-The Coming Insurrection
The Coming Insurrection, authored by the anonymous "Invisible Committee," has been the subject of much controversy lately. Originally published in 2007 under the French title, L'insurrection qui vient (La Fabrique), the book has become focus of the "anti-terrorism" trials quoted in the above paragraph. The book is being published in English but its influence has already crossed the
Celebrating the English translation at an "unauthorized" Barnes & Nobel event in
By reading the text yourself, I assume I won't be alone in not finding much of positive substance while in fact finding much that is counter-productive. What follows is a review of the English translation from the perspective of someone who desires the revolutionary transformation of society by self-organized sectors and involving long-term organizing and movement building, culminating in re-defining society's institutions bearing on race, class, gender and decision-making to attain a classless and self-managed participatory society. Why do the review? It is not just that there are many things wrong with the book making it an easy target. It has unfortunately gotten attention in mainstream media and among activists -- both having a negative impact on our Left movements.
Visibility Vs. Invisibility
Aside from the title of the text, one of the first odd features that one notices is its anonymous authoring. Presumably the folks who comprise the "Invisible Committee" prefer to be taken seriously so why not take responsibility for their ideas? One finds their reasoning to remain anonymous on pg. 75 of the PDF. They argue that "To be visible is to be exposed, that is to say above all, vulnerable" and when "leftists everywhere continually make their cause more ‘visible' -- whether that of the homeless, of women, or of undocumented immigrants -- in hopes that it will get dealt with, they're doing exactly the contrary of what must be done."
The authors seem to -- wrongly -- think that not shedding light on issues of racism or sexism is what must be done. In fact, the exact opposite side of their argument is more valid: for women, queers, immigrants, and others who care about injustice to hide themselves and hide issues of racism and sexism from exposure is to relegate themselves to precariousness and vulnerability. To argue that oppressed sectors of society, and those that work in solidarity with them, should not organize and make their cause visible is to argue for those groups to not address their oppressions.
Serious Leftists, which obviously includes women, workers, immigrants, etc., understand that vulnerable and precarious people should not be placed in more risk and since the authors do not quote anyone or provide any examples that could qualify their generalization, it is not clear who they are speaking of. Even if the authors are themselves in precarious social and material circumstances -- and not themselves students, workers, or from a privileged race, gender or class -- there is no single example that I can think of that can prove their basic reasoning to apply to all, and assuming there was one, it alone certainly could not justify the argument they present to remain anonymous. In fact quite the opposite is often true where people of all kinds have voluntarily stood up publicly and heroically in face of grave dangers and defiant odds on behalf of important causes. Of course it is not necessary to do so if one is facing danger or risk, say of deportation, nor does requiring anonymity lesson heroism. But it is wrong to be judgmental either way.
Still, they offer more rationale for their decision, "Not making ourselves visible, but instead turning the anonymity to which we've been relegated to our advantage, and through conspiracy, nocturnal or faceless actions, creating an invulnerable position of attack." (Pg. 75) The authors don't seem to understand that even from their own perspective their anonymity can work against them. For example, let's say that the authors needed some form of solidarity because they were in legal trouble. Assuming anyone would be willing enough to look beyond their posturing to offer them solidarity, how could anyone help without knowing who to help? And more, without having any responsibility for their own identity it would be easy for any others to act maliciously in their name against them or others but obviously damaging them. It seems they have equally positioned themselves to be vulnerable.
However, overlooking the problem of their own vulnerability, they argue, "To be socially nothing is not a humiliating condition, the source of some tragic lack of recognition -- from whom do we seek recognition? -- but is on the contrary the condition for maximum freedom of action." (Pg. 75)
There is no way to know if the authors really believe what they write or not. However, certainly their argument avoids a whole set of problems implicit in their position (dealt with below) while proposing that they are concerned with "maximum freedom of action." Beneath their hyperbole the core of the problem is that it is thinly veiled vanguardism, that not only assumes that the Invisible Committee knows what is best for all others by way of strategy and tactics, but that also removes the option of freedom and autonomy from others. Let's look at two examples bearing directly on the text.
First, let's assume the "Tarnac 9," who were said to be of "criminal association for the purposes of terrorist activity," are innocent and were wrongly accused (all have in-fact been released). This book is being used as evidence against them, that they are said to have authored by authorities. If the authors are not among the accused and they are innocent of writing the text then their spending time in jail and being wrapped up in related past, present, and future legal proceedings, as well as tying up the time, effort, and resources of others offering solidarity, is a basic example of how the actual authors have negatively affected the freedom of others.
Second, beyond the Tarnac 9, what about an act of sabotage that provides pretext for the state to further exercise its repressive mechanisms by using "anti-terrorism" machinations negatively affecting the greater population? The Invisible Committee write, "let's adopt the following principle from sabotage: a minimum of risk in taking the action, a minimum of time, and maximum damage." Aside from proposing workplace sabotage they also write:
"the principles of sabotage can be applied to both production and circulation. The technical infrastructure of the metropolis is vulnerable. Its flows amount to more than the transportation of people and commodities. Information and energy circulates via wire networks, fibers and channels, and these can be attacked. Nowadays sabotaging the social machine with any real effect involves reappropriating and reinventing the ways of interrupting its networks. How can a TGV line or an electrical network be rendered useless? How does one find the weak points in computer networks, or scramble radio waves and fill screens with white noise?" (Pg. 74, one of the incriminating paragraphs in the anti-terrorism trials.)
Leaving aside the senselessness of certain forms of sabotage as a means of building activist movements and the fact that what is proposed is as likely or more likely to hurt everyday workers as owners, let's consider the Greek uprising in December 2008 -- popular among insurrectionists and which the Invisible Committee reference in their introduction. Standing outside the Polytechnic University in Exarhia last month, anti-authoritarian comrades explained to us the negative effects of the shooting of a police officer by an armed revolutionary group just a few blocks away at the Cultural Ministry. It was the second shooting targeting police at the tail-end of the uprising. Our friends explained the problem, "the whole society was against the cops. We resisted the police with our bare hands and nobody said a word while people even came out to support us and participate. As soon as someone shot the cop society saw us negatively, and the police portrayed themselves as the victims and, by a single bullet, the tables were suddenly turned in their favor." Thus the unilateral acts of a few had negative consequences for the many.
In
What is gained at so great a price for others? The book doesn't tell us. If the acts hurt the poor and weak and weaken the movements of the poor and weak, why exactly are they suggested or undertaken?
Do the authors value the freedom of others too, or only their own choices regardless of impact on others and under the cloak of "invisibility?" Again, if they are from a vulnerable race, class, or gendered position then anonymity can be understood and respected. If that were genuinely the case then the authors used bad judgment and poor reasoning to protect their own choice while dismissing others who choose to work openly and genuinely against racism, patriarchy, and capitalism. However, if that is not the case, and they are from an elite background, it would be an understatement to say that their reasoning is similarly misguided. Either case has negative consequences for those outside their group organizing against injustice.
But more, building the new society requires new social relations and community where solidarity and mutual aid is felt and practiced. This requires openness and visibility not individualism and "invisibility."
Callousness & Platitudes
The entire text has an irreverent character attacking what is mostly important, not just for those who dominate society as you would expect, but also for serious Leftists, such as institution and movement building by activists who are working to transform the world. They write for example, ‘"the democratic character of
decision-making' is only a problem for the fanatics of process." (Pg. 81) Are they part of the Left, part of an effort to win a better world? If so, their hostility to others with that intent is very hard to comprehend.
Even beyond dismissiveness toward other activists, there is a blatant callousness toward working people. The introduction declares, "To tell the truth, the disastrous unemployment figures no longer provoke any feeling in us." (Pg. 7) So the authors should not be surprised if the mass of unemployed have no feelings for them or remain indifferent to, or even become hostile to, the authors' ideas.
The above tone of indifference, perhaps employed for shock value and attention seeking, is continued throughout the text. For example, the authors write:
"The normal functioning of the world usually serves to hide our state of truly catastrophic dispossession. What is called ‘catastrophe' is no more than the forced suspension of this state, one of those rare moments when we regain some sort of presence in the world. Let the petroleum reserves run out earlier than expected; let the international flows that regulate the tempo of the metropolis be interrupted, let us suffer some great social disruption and some great `return to savagery of the population,' a `planetary threat,' the `end of civilization!'" (Pg. 54)
As satire of what a foolish callous soul might intone, this is pretty spot on. But as the actual utterances of people trying to communicate their desires, it is incredibly sad -- and destructive.
The rest of the book repeats various arguments for isolating themselves, and others who share their ideas, from collective action and organization. For example their declaration that, "Organizations are obstacles to organizing ourselves." (Pg. 7) Once again, as satire, maybe -- but there is no other justification for such absurdity as is evidenced by their own rationale for this statement premised on such nonsense as, "In truth, there is no gap between what we are, what we do, and what we are becoming. Organizations -- political or labor, fascist or anarchist -- always begin by separating, practically, these aspects of existence." (Pg. 7) Of course there is no gap between "what we are, what we do, and what we are becoming" but organizations "always begin by separating, practically..."? It's as if their making it up as they go along.
Rather than abolish organizations we should self-consciously redefine them for classless, anti-sexist, anti-racist, and self-managing objectives. But instead of this kind of self-conscious organization they propose "a new idea of communism" that is to be found in "the shadows of bar rooms, in print shops, squats, farms, occupied gymnasiums" and equally astonishingly propose that this is where "the truly revolutionary potentiality of the present" can be found. (Pg. 8) An occupied gymnasium? Are they serious?
The message they deliver, even if they don't believe what they are saying, translates to "go where most people are not, don't bother to interact or organize, lower your standards for revolution away from society-wide classlessness and participatory self-management. Isolate yourselves, don't make demands, don't have program or strategy, don't try to build the seeds of the future society in the present, don't talk about racism or sexism, etc. Remain disorganized and fragmented." Not only is it a strategy for defeat, it is a rhetoric that whether intended or not, makes Leftists look both uncaring and stupid.
Gibberish & Non Sequiturs
The authors declare that "there's no longer any language for common experience" (Pg. 15) and it is hard to comprehend what this could mean. If they take it literally, then what would be the point of translating their text, or even writing it in the first place, if there was no shared language? Why would the authors even bother trying to communicate in any way and not just crawl under a rock?
Citing the French Revolution and the welfare state they argue that these events were preceded by years of struggle. They write that struggle creates a language, by which I, perhaps too generously, assume they mean a shared understanding, in which a new social order can express itself. They rationalize their own orientation against organization stating that "there is nothing like that [struggle] today." (Pg. 15) Of course this is nonsense and dismisses gains of the woman's, gay, and civil rights movements, not to mention struggles even of recent years such as those in Argentina, Greece, Bolivia, and Venezuela -- among other places -- that have generations of political struggle, consciousness, tradition, organizing, and movement and institutions building behind them, and which the Invisible Committee seems to completely disregard.
It is one thing for the authors themselves to have their own reasons, however misguided, to avoid long-term movement and institution building to counter the structures that now dominate society, or to avoid creating new structures organized on gender equity and cultural diversity, classlessness, self-management, and participatory empowerment. However, it is an insult to overlook those efforts in other movements or to imply that organizing against oppressions like war and occupation, among others, is wrong.
Strategy to Disrupt
So what does all this imply for their strategic suggestions? They write that it is "useless to get involved in this or that citizens' group, in this or that dead-end of the far Left, or in the latest ‘community effort.'" (Pg. 63, original emphasis) What could possibly be the logic for this call to retreat from the Left?
They say, "Every organization that claims to contest the present order mimics the form, mores and language of miniature states. Thus far, every impulse to ‘do politics differently' has only contributed to the indefinite spread of the state's tentacles." (Pg. 63) But such blanket condemnation fails to see differences between hierarchical organizations and classless, non-sexist, non-racist, participatory ones that should seek to embody the future in the present. Instead the text argues a "holier-than-thou" stance from their position of anonymity. Of course, it is much easier to dismiss the serious work of many who really care about changing the world than it is to take criticism for senseless and even harmful ideas.
Yet they continue with their warning, "expect nothing from organizations":
"Organizations are attractive due to their apparent consistency -- they have a history, a head office, a name, resources, a leader, a strategy and a discourse. They are nonetheless empty structures, which, in spite of their grand origins, can never be filled. In all their affairs, at every level, these organizations are concerned above all with their own survival as organizations, and little else. Their repeated betrayals have often alienated the commitment of their own rank and file. And this is why you can, on occasion, run into worthy beings within them. But the promise of the encounter can only be realized outside the organization and, unavoidably, at odds with it." (Pg. 66)
If such flavorless comments were aimed only at hierarchical institutions and social structures I would still disagree -- such institutions are NOT attractive and if the authors think so they are mistaken. Even worse their comments continue to make no distinction between hierarchical and non-hierarchical organizations and institutions -- simply rejecting all organization -- which is tantamount, if you think about it for a minute, to proposing a future that lacks workplaces, religious centers, families, any kind of assemblies, and so on -- a future in which lone individuals or small groups fend for themselves (a vision seemingly not too far from what they propose). They are deliberate in this rejection -- however badly misguided it is. To reject classless, anti-racist, and anti-sexist movements and organizations is to embrace class rule, racism and sexism. And even though the authors would probably deny it -- the denial would have no basis.
The crude analysis above where "organizations mimic miniature states," is extended into "assemblies suffering from the bad example of bourgeois parliaments," about which they propose as legitimate activity for leftists to:
Sabotage every representative authority.
Spread the talk.
Abolish general assemblies. (Pg. 80)
This is arguably precisely the agenda of the police regarding the Left -- to sabotage efforts at Left organization and decision-making, to spread their views and listen to nothing, and to disrupt or if possible abolish the vehicles of popular participation.
First, if a group of people are having an assembly and anyone comes in to disrupt with the intention of "abolishing the general assembly," not only is that a dictatorial act by the one person or small group of individuals high-jacking the gathering in their own interest over the collective objectives of the rest, worse than rule by fiat -- but it would be entirely in order for the assembly to kick them out of the meeting and deliver a clear message that they are not welcome back without acknowledging their wrong-doing and a genuine interest in participation. Not engaging in such disruptive behavior where people are trying to build solidarity and participation is so basic a lesson that it is beneath contempt and should not be tolerated. And more, to write such things, and be taken seriously, would be odd, except, of course, if it is mainstream media and the Right-Wing that is appreciating and giving visibility to the words, and readers are only amused by the flashy writing or belligerent behavior.
The Invisible Committee writes that:
"It's not a matter of critiquing assemblies or abandoning them [they write this while critiquing], but of liberating the speech, gestures, and interplay of beings that take place within them. We just have to see that each person comes to an assembly not only with a point of view or a motion, but with desires, attachments, capacities, forces, sadnesses and a certain disposition toward others, an openness." (Pg. 81)
Yes, okay, and of course this includes them. But what does it imply? Disrupting an organization engaged in positive movement building efforts is not the way to deal with this. Additionally, I'm not sure what "liberating speech, gestures, and interplay of beings" mean but the rest is so true that it becomes a benign observation. It is to overstate the obvious. Of course people carry with them, wherever they are and not just to assemblies, pre-determined dispositions for many things in their everyday lives. And not only that, people also shape and are shaped by the institutions they participate in. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to offer specific forms of institutional organization that are designed to consciously facilitate classlessness, solidarity, cultural diversity, gender equity, and self-management instead of speaking vaguely of "sadness and openness."
Assemblies should not simply be vehicles for resisting the oppressive society that we know today and under times of crisis. They should eventually expand into forms of self-managed control over neighborhood and community decision-making in a revolutionary society. Not where consensus, one person-one vote, or majority rule automatically dominate, but where people decide themselves what is the best method of decision-making for arriving at classless outcomes that affect them in proportional ways. Such assemblies can act as bodies for self-governing law-making and adjudication (two things the Invisible Committee would probably wrongly reject). And they should serve alongside decentralized worker and consumer councils for participatory economic decision-making allocating the material means of life throughout society, with accompanying emancipatory changes in other spheres of life too.
Empty Vision
So what social forms do the anonymous authors offer? The Commune... Their definition is not one that includes new self-managing relations of production and consumption where people have decision-making input in proportion to how they are affected. Their vision of the commune is not carved out by classless divisions of labor and remuneration. Their vision is not defined by workers' and consumers' councils negotiating a decentralized participatory plan. Their communes, instead, "come into being when people find each other, get on with each other, and decide on a common path. The commune is perhaps what gets decided at the very moment when we would normally part ways. It's the joy of an encounter that survives its expected end. It's what makes us say ‘we,' and makes that an event." (Pg. 67)
Is this kind of verbal emptiness really something readers appreciate? Their commune is not an organizational structure that can carry our collective aspirations into the future and deliver solidarity, classlessness, diversity and self-management. Their commune "would not define themselves -- as collectives tend to do - by what's inside and what's outside them, but by the density of the ties at their core." (Pg. 68) -- Whatever that means. And their commune:
"seeks to dissolve the question of needs. It seeks to break all economic dependency and all political subjugation; it degenerates into a milieu the moment it loses contact with the truths on which it is founded. There are all kinds of communes that wait neither for the numbers nor the means to get organized, and even less for the ‘right moment" -- which never arrives.'" (Pg. 67)
Their vision of a commune offers very little guarantee of its own basic existence. There are no proposed methods for deciding what will be produced or consumed nor how much of each or its distribution in a socially responsible way. There is no organizational structure to ensure classlessness between and within communes or self-management. And indeed, the authors would likely reject these criticisms even though to do so is to throw caution to the wind on a whole host of important questions that should be dealt with consciously and collectively. Perhaps this is what leads them to write suicidal words like, "The important thing is to cultivate and spread [a] necessary disposition towards fraud" (Pg. 69). As well as nonsense about labor time like, "There will be no more time to fill, but a liberation of energy that no "time" contains; lines that take shape, that accentuate each other, that we can follow at our leisure, to their ends, until we see them cross with others." (Pg. 69)
And this reader, and I hope others too, has to wonder if the authors are delusional when they write:
"It's a question of knowing how to fight, to pick locks, to set broken bones and treat sicknesses; how to build a pirate radio transmitter; how to set up street kitchens; how to aim straight; how to gather together scattered knowledge and set up wartime agronomics; understand plankton biology; soil composition; study the way plants interact; get to know possible uses for and connections with our immediate environment as well as the limits we can't go beyond without exhausting it. We must start today, in preparation for the days when we'll need more than just a symbolic portion of our nourishment and care." (Pg. 71)
If those are the steps they see as central to winning a better world -- fine. They should go and do those things. Take karate. Work for a locksmith. Get medical training. Study electrical engineering. Set up street kitchens -- for the unemployed they are unmoved by. Practice shooting, and so on. But please, go do it somewhere truly anonymous rather than parading the suicidal rhetoric publicly while maintaining personal anonymity and disrupting the efforts of Leftists either overtly or by attacking their organizing or indirectly giving police an excuse and avenues by which to attack.
So what are the authors for if they are against organizing, movement and institution building, and working to provide the ground work for the new society? Their answer is "Insurrection." They write, "Take up arms. Do everything possible to make their use unnecessary. Against the army, the only victory is political." (Pg. 84, original italics)
Is writing in ways that can mean anything and nothing at the same time supposed to be productive?
Yet they continue, "There is no such thing as a peaceful insurrection. Weapons are necessary: it's a question of doing everything possible to make using them unnecessary." And that "An insurrection is more about taking up arms and maintaining an ‘armed presence' than it is about armed struggle." That, "We need to distinguish clearly between being armed and the use of arms. Weapons are a constant in revolutionary situations, but their use is infrequent and rarely decisive at key turning points..." (Pg. 84)
A little knowledge apparently goes only a little ways. In truth, of course, carrying around weapons is an invitation to centers of violence to attack, with impunity. And with or without arms, as long as institutional and movement building capacities are not patiently and collectively developed -- through trial and error -- when workers are prepared to take-over factories and people are prepared to take over their communities -- then the type of insurrection they speak of, if the needed moment comes -- will be useless and more than likely backfire horribly wiping away many gains made by people struggling for years.
But even if one oddly believed in some kind of armed uprising, why focus only on insurrection rather than all the detailed work that must go into creating the society we need? The authors propose an urgency that most would agree with but also an argument for sectarianism that most would not:
"It's useless to wait—for a breakthrough, for the revolution, the nuclear apocalypse or a social movement. To go on waiting is madness. The catastrophe is not coming, it is here. We are already situated within the collapse of a civilization. It is within this reality that we must choose sides." (Pg. 63, original Emphasis)
Indeed, there is vast and incredibly debilitating injustice -- though things could most certainly get much worse, as well as much better. But in the face of urgency the solution is not to act in ways that worsen conditions or alienate potential allies by saying "we must choose sides" where the sides are between choosing waiting without organizing or choosing insurrection. No one should wait without organizing. Everyone should organize. So the solution is to get to work with others, develop shared ideas about not only what we are against, for example, capitalism, racism, patriarchy and authoritarianism -- but what we are for. Once we know where it is we want to go, we can then act with the urgency needed to organize and build institutions and movements able to win change and create the necessary foundations for a future society.
Final Note
Although it bears very little on the review above, I would also like to point out a few problems with associating the "Invisible Committee" as within the tradition of the Situationist International (S.I.) (1957-1972), which is not so easy, but is instructive. Some reviewers have explored the connection, for example Alberto Toscano in his essay "The War Against Preterrorism" mentioned in the opening of this review. Toscano compares the differences and similarities, "Though the agenda of L'insurrection is still dictated by a situationist-inspired total critique of contemporary society, the lengthy analyses of the ills of everyday metropolitan life in the age of flexitime and the new economy are more in keeping with the recent concerns of critical French sociology than with prophecies about homo sacer." It is also well known that Julien Coupat, one of the accused Tarnac 9 and founder of the journal Tiqqun (1999-2001), wrote his dissertation on S.I. theorist and founder Guy Debord (1931-1994). Certainly their may be S.I. influence. But how important is the comparison for its own sake? Not very... The Situationists had many theoretical and organizational problems, not least their sectarianism (something for others to write about). Any comparison should not downplay problems in either group or exaggerate their importance. In their 15 year history the S.I. held many conflicting ideas and positions but they were always an organization and an international -- something the Invisible Committee rejects and which informs key sections of their text. And it has long been well known who most of the S.I.'s members were since they never hid behind "invisibility."
Likewise, another difference between the two groups is that for most of the 60s the S.I. advocated the concept of self-managed workers' councils ala the Greek/French theorist Cornelius Castoriadis (1922-1997) and the legendary revolutionary journal Socialism or Barbarism. Castoriadis' thinking not only influenced Guy Debord and others in the S.I., but also impacted widely upon many in the organizing and agitation leading up to the 1968 Paris Uprising (See "Greek Uprising, Echoes of Castoriadis," Chris Spannos, ZNet, December 31, 2008).
Comparing The Coming Insurrection with Situationist literature one does find commonalities, such as a writing style, however they each are different, and even assessing likeness in content such as how they each arrive at their "total critique of contemporary society," as well as their different conclusions, would entail a longer examination which would probably find core differences (although frankly this reader doubts such a comparison would yield much of substance). The one similarity though is the use of language and writing that is the complete opposite of everyday language that regular people use -- language that is either too dense or can mean anything and nothing at once. If we are truly trying to build movements that everybody can understand and participate in, rather than be dominated by elite, then no matter how well meaning we may be, our language needs to be user friendly so that everyone can help shape our vision and strategy.
ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
ZCommentaries
ZAudios
ZVideos
Blog Posts
Books
THANK YOU FOR WRITING THIS REVIEW!!!
By Lucker, Andy at Aug 09, 2009 03:13 AM
My partner came across this a week ago and had me read it, too. We LOVED it! We've been trying to learn about this Insurrectionist bullshit for a year or so, because we want to learn what some of our black bloc friends actually think. Thanks a ton for writing this review! I have the book in the mail from Amazon.
Their urge for destruction is remeniscent of Bakunin. The Chomsky/anti-post-modern parallel is here, as well as Bookchin's works onLifestyle Anarchism: http://libcom.org/library/social-anarchism--lifestyle-anarchism-murray-bookchin
I enjoyed this, because my experience has been one of evasion. In every experience i've had, Insurrectionists seem afraid to engage in serious discussion about their ideas. They'll all too willing to let me know they do crazy shit and covert operations i should not know about, but they're seriously offended when i try to discuss with them, "Why? What makes you think that will change anything?" or try to have a worthwhile discussion about institutions we do want, or how to get them.
I quit calling myself an anarchist because of the many disputes i've had with Insurrectionist. I'm always outed as "not a real anarchist", sometimes as an FBI informant, and almost always as a Leninist AND a reformist.
The most confusing part of Neo-Situationists (Insurrectionists included), as you mentioned, is their aversion with language. All the talk about "destroying work," being "anti-work," "destroy the economy," "abolish identity," "Decolonize your mind!" - baffles the hell out of me, and i'm not alone. Even the crowd of people they're afraid to admit is their target for recruits (young, working class, white men who know something's wrong and identify with punk rock's "anti-authority" counter-culture), i think, are generally confused by this type of language. However, it offers radical slogans to compensate for sitting on asses. Language is a HUGE barrier, everything i (and generally, people i agree with) write is denoted as "Leninist" AND "reformist" - not out of any coherent critique, but because i don't say "anti" every few words, and i stick to simple language.
Another bizarre element to Insurrectionists - Why do they want everyone to always know how "extreme" and risque their ideas and actions are? Insurrectionists seem to be inviting the FBI to monitor themselves and the Left. For example, the RNC-WC was infiltrated by a middle-aged woman officer whose pseudonym was Norma Jean and had a comical backstory; the WC put her IN CHARGE OF SECURITY for the planned riots! The St. Paul, MN, and FBI knew pretty much everything that was going on, because the WC published most of it on the internet and was easily infiltrated. (I even got an invite to come participate, and i have no serious affiliations with any groups like them, and live close to St. Louis.)
I know a lot of Trots up in St. Paul, and they said the City was pretty much on lock down for a couple weeks: Every Leftist group's offices were raided and much stolen by police. Whole neighborhoods turned into military police zones. Etc., etc. The St. Paul Police Dept., in fact, was able to disarm most of the event ahead of time (stopping WC riot equipment on incoming Interstate Highways, etc.) so much that it invested too much in its police's budget. As a result, St. Paul has too many police on duty today, so it's monitoring and presence is even more intense.
I fear the same is coming of Pittsburg's G20, where POG is openly stating that their event will center around police confrontation/combat. POG's demo is a day before the mainstream Bailout the People's Movement demo, and it will only serve to rile up the police for the everyday people participating. In their opinion, "self-management" merely equates only to autonomy and has no connection with the relationship between how we implicate others with our decisions (solidarity and autonomy).
I'm reminded of Berkman's Prison Memoirs, in which he admits to his actions having alienated himself and anarchists from the workers' movement, and that it has put their movement in an almost impossible position with the current state's repression. This is why anarchism virtually disappeared in the US after Sacco and Vanzetti (1927), until the 60s; the best of them retreated to groups like the Communist Party (see Lucy Parsons).
Reply this comment
Re: Ego Assassins?
By Casten, J.D. at Jul 28, 2009 00:31 AM
Joshua: thanks for the clarification—I agree with your point about making organizations an end rather than a means (and they may often use everyone in them, rather than the other way around). I think Chris's review is as problematic as has been Chomsky's reaction to postmodernism in general—trying to see if something works within your perspective, rather than trying to work out what it may be trying to do on its own terms. But his critique has its place too, imo.
I'm not an advocate of violence (and I don't think you are either)—for many reasons: it's like starting a fire in a city of straw—you just don't know where it's going to lead. Check this favorite link of mine out ("An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control") :
http://cryptome.org/stoa-atpc.htm
There's been a lot of research on techniques of control—probably more than on technologies of resistance. An isolated group oriented towards violence would not have the sort of decentralized "gorilla warfare" and wider movement support that are needed to resist organized war machines. The writers of the linked-to report at least recognize that broader democratic agreement is needed for some sort of legitimation. Small group violence—terrorism at the non-state level— is a fringe battle and a crapshoot, as unpredictable as torture in its results: recall the reaction to 911? The domino's of violence multiplied, like child-abuse passed on from generation to generation.
Police make me feel nervous, and safer at the same time. But that's an "us them" mentality that ignores the psychology of the people assuming these jobs. At least the police learn not to raise bully clubs in the air for photo-ops (just jab the ribcage indiscreetly)—maybe the best lessons for "the resistance" would be to study "the system": but cooptation is all too often mutual—and one becomes what one once hated—one assumes all the latest technologies, only to find that by assuming these "effective" measures, they become what they once resisted. That's being between a rock and a hard place: when the effective measures are evil, and the good measures just aren't effective. Capitalism, in many ways is "effective"... in ways that "making soup with hugs" can't be. Pragmatic effectiveness isn't just about politics though, its about attitudes, etc, too. But maybe wanting to be "effective" is a problem too. Effect who? Someone who want's to be effected, or not? Another favorite link ("Deconstructing Army Leadership"):
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/paparone.pdf
My prior link to Ryan Trecartin's "I-Be AREA" video was just to exemplify other strands of the "anarchy family." I'm not an anarchist... I'm a "radical moderate" feeling my way towards the global median voter, and trying to identify where the rubber hits the road with elite political compromise. My political story is different—not dominated by domination—and all too bland.
Reply this comment
Ego Assassins?
By Casten, J.D. at Jul 27, 2009 23:02 PM
Joshua Sperber: You're links to discussions relevant to the organizing/organization distinction were helpful. But, you often seem quite on the offensive here... maybe you find militant nihilism "sexy?" I find "The Coming Insurrection" as artfully useful as the writings of the Marquis De Sade: instructive, but not an instruction manual. Much is a psychological trip—but if it's conclusion is fragmented family-friend hives armed and hunkered down in their bunkers, in an "every clan/cult for itself" perspective—I'd have a difficult time incorporating this "vision" with my own. I've been in the military... that lifestyle often sucks.
I re-read the first part of this work: "From whatever angle you approach it, the present offers no way out." "Present" here could mean current times, the now, or even being—a very Heideggerian preoccupation. "No Way Out" alludes to the play by Jean-Paul Sartre; "From whatever angle" alludes to the multi-perspectivism of Nietzsche; and the "First Circle" which follows circulates around the "I AM WHAT I AM"—all this is quite existentially informed. Going beyond ego? Go ahead... try to rip egos to shreds with words... but beyond the "deep insights" your friends and family will probably tire of your "over-psychoanalysing" eventually... and want to move on to another topic. "Getting real," and I can't underscore this enough, is not about the "Terrible Truth"—it's about the MUNDANE: Suffering? Being hurt? Deceived? Yes! But also thriving, learning, sharing experiences, and above all: Being Bored to Death—which of course leads to many psychopath's claiming as some punks did in the movie "Repo Man": "Let's do some crimes."
There also seems to be a bit of the "Slacker's Manifesto" to "The Coming Insurrection"—a militant slacker? Leach the system until it crumbles? That will leave a lot of people with useless leaching skills on the day of reckoning! And I'm all for "disrupting the system"—just as long as it's not "my system" you're disrupting. This goes to a crucial point of the attitude of the writers: terrorism (or territoryism) is not an attempt to implement, planetary, democratic, legal, humane, or even minority objectives—it's a cult mentality that simply seizes power, for a moment... and based on what?: a human intelligence circularly trapped within the web of its own origins? (much like the question determining the answer... a pragmatic use of reason will only lead you back to the community at large: the community is reason).
Now, I like provocative statements like "As long as there is Man and Environment, the police will be there between them." But do they really believe the world would have been better off had we not regulated ozone depletion in the past? Are externalities not to be policed? Some laws are bogus, but since when did getting rescued from a rape by the police become a bad thing?
I think this book is artful... thought provoking... but smacks a little of youth trying to knock one out of the park at a football game. I wouldn't reject the work the same way Chris did, or embrace it as Joshua seems to do: they both have read it more closely than I have—and see something totally different. (But I think Steve's cutting through the crap, and Gui's taking the work with a grain of salt are even better approaches).
Here is suggested (art) viewing: what other young "radicals" are doing for your ego:
http://www.ubu.com/film/trecartin_area.html
Reply this comment
Re: Ego Assassins?
By Sperber, Joshua at Jul 27, 2009 23:28 PM
J.D., I don't embrace the book, and I find it problematic. But I find Chris Spannos' review far more problematic. I find his question of "effectiveness" mistaken, but even on those grounds you could see the effectiveness of violence committed, for example, by Black militants during the Civil Rights movement. You can, more specifically, see the effectiveness of the theory of a small group in Paris 1968. That's not "sexy," but it's the historical record, so to speak.
And if there's any "cult" I'm wary of, it's the one that idolizes "organization" as its own end. And I don't think your "rape" question flies for many reasons, not least capitalism's hyper-masculine social structures, and, more specifically, the chronic rape being committed within the US military (i.e. "the police" itself).
Reply this comment
Re: The Coming Insurrection or the Arrival of Suicidal Nonsense?
By Rochat, Gui at Jul 27, 2009 22:20 PM
Chris
Casten is correct that we all come from our own cloudy perspective. But I fail to see how you can regard this booklet as a serious reactionary threat to all environmental and leftist organizations. It is a typical French diffuse and vague text and they surely put on a performance and succeed in provoking, which is their sole intent. As for their denial of centralized power, they tweak the belief in predetermined economic domination, which is clear to me at least that the establishment is trying strenuously to salvage. I too have a problem with their individual little revolutions unless they see it as truly subversive and hard to contain. I would not want to typify your take on the text as naïve, but I do think that you took it too seriously. I do not advocate nor admire catastrophe but I think it unfortunately unavoidable.Oppression alone does not make a revolution, nevetheless I am less cynical than I may have seemed. Finis.
Reply this comment
Re:
By Spannos, Chris at Jul 27, 2009 22:57 PM
Gui,
>Casten is correct that we all come from our own cloudy perspective. But I fail to see how you can regard this booklet as a serious reactionary threat to all environmental and leftist organizations.
It's not that I see it as a literal threat to all Left organizations, environmental or otherwise - I think that would be inflating its importance. For that to occur the Invisible Committee would have to make an appearance on Oprah and top the NYT's best seller list, etc. But just because it hasn't had that spectacular success does not mean that it has not harmed a few very well meaning efforts, nor that I don't think the ideas are harmful. I don't want to overstate its importance nor understate it. And all coverage that I had seen prior to my review overlooked what I think are serious faults in it so I thought a review from this perspective was needed.
> It is a typical French diffuse and vague text and they surely put on a performance and succeed in provoking, which is their sole intent. As for their denial of centralized power, they tweak the belief in predetermined economic domination, which is clear to me at least that the establishment is trying strenuously to salvage. I too have a problem with their individual little revolutions unless they see it as truly subversive and hard to contain. I would not want to typify your take on the text as naïve, but I do think that you took it too seriously. I do not advocate nor admire catastrophe but I think it unfortunately unavoidable.Oppression alone does not make a revolution, nevetheless I am less cynical than I may have seemed. Finis.
Well, thank you for clarifying. I am glad to hear you don't admire catastrophe and that you are less cynical!
Reply this comment
Re: The Coming Insurrection or the Arrival of Suicidal Nonsense?
By Rochat, Gui at Jul 27, 2009 19:13 PM
Chris,
I decided after all to take you up on your challenge:
"The normal functioning of the world usually serves to hide our state of truly catastrophic dispossession. What is called ‘catastrophe' is no more than the forced suspension of this state, one of those rare moments when we regain some sort of presence in the world. Let the petroleum reserves run out earlier than expected; let the international flows that regulate the tempo of the metropolis be interrupted, let us suffer some great social disruption and some great `return to savagery of the population,' a `planetary threat,' the `end of civilization!'"
This to me is a statement of fact. However much you may want an utopian planned reversal of the present chaotic alienation and deprivation, the only way out indeed appear to be catastrophes i.e. intense disruptions, which alone may be capable of breaking the ties that bind us so strongly to 'dispossession'. I am with Brecht whose cynicism is truly realistic and devoid from any kind of idealism. The savagery of humankind and threat to what is called euphemistically civilization, are destructive and deplorable but it is reality and will destroy the mocked up simulacra of the surrounding world with which we are now forced to live in these Western nations. No caring soul will rescue us from that fate.
"The metropolis is this simultaneous death of city and country. It is the crossroads where all the petty bourgeois come together, in the middle of this middle class that stretches out indefinitely, as much a result of rural flight as of urban sprawl. To cover the planet with glass would fit perfectly the cynicism of contemporary architecture. A school, a hospital, or a media center are all variations on the same theme: transparency, neutrality, uniformity. These massive, fluid buildings are conceived without any need to know what they will house." Why deny this uniformity of our visual and consequently emotional prison? Just look around you, maybe not in Woodshole, but the psychological damage of shopping malls, billboards and housing barracks is tremendous and binds the observer into an artificial universe. Just walk the streets ofManhattan
We can find TV that states the problem, movies, music, magazines, books, etc
They do not, they deliberately disform the problem, vide what is happening now with Gates and Sottomayor, both deluders.
“practical effects of their ideas for our potential to change the world, what that world may look like, and the affects their ideas have on our movements”.
That to me is hope fullfilling thinking of the most naïve kind. There is no way that we can predict what will come out of this chaos nor have I found on any of these radical web sites any indication of practial formulas or tools to break the bonds. That is why the prediction above of a catastrophic resolution is perfectly reasonable to expect.
“I am concerned with the affects of the books ideas on our movements, effects not only in the realm of ideas or words, but how they are put into practice, which myself, friends and comrades have all experienced, and it has been negative to say the least”
Okay, I can get into that but frankly I do not believe that this book can affect to such an extent. For that it is too little like the bible which is a lot more bloodthirsty and predicts catastrophes so much liked by the ultra-right christers as I believe Vidal calls them. As for dangerous books, I would place the bible (and maybe the koran) first…But nevertheless I have to accept your statement of CTI’s harmful influence on those who try to organize for the relief of suffering.
"leftists everywhere continually make their cause more ‘visible', they're doing exactly the contrary of what must be done."
Now here I totally agree with you but I can see where that reasoning comes from and that is what I call European bourgeois humanism, which is blind to particular cases as long as it can keep it’s idealist notions safe. This is total nonsense even though they hope in CTI that deprivation will drive people to revolt. But it does not, it demoralizes and poverty never enobles as Rousseau erroneously thought (another one of those pesky French 18th century humanist philosophers).
“To be too strict or too rational is to assume too much authority”
By this I specifically do not mean either to be less rational or irrational, but both strictness and rationality have been traditionally the purlieu of men (with the myth that women are emotional and soft at heart). Authority comes with those notions which are hard to shed frankly, even in discussions like these…..think about it. My quote of Brecht is explained above. I do not like weak hearted idealists and you probably will fall over this statement too. As for organization which clearly to my mind involves hierarchies because I read Zerzan, it is the division of labor which started us thinking of organizing and planning so that as a result we have in fact become Leibnitzian monads (units functioning in forced isolation) and see again for that Lang’s Metropolis, and as good example too are our defunct trade unions where everyone battles his/her own individual struggle. The Church and USSR Communism are both bourgeois organizations with humanist intent and hierarchical structures. Now I do not claim to know or understand how organizing for revolution will or can spark it. The spontaneity of the Russian uprising calmed as soon as Lenin cum suis were sent by train through Germany back to Russia, where they took over the reins, ousted the provisional government and regulated and organized the Revolution to death (like Robespierre, shoving the disorderly Girondists out of the way). The path of European history has been a constant ‘rappel a l’ordre’. We are living in an Empire of Disorder (Alain Joxe, 2002) and the only change I can imagine is more chaos and the breaking apart of societies, which frankly to me are not such terrible things. I doubt there are alternatives. This is a question of different philosophies between you and me. The pugnaciousness of CTI is born from the idea that careful hard work in building movements have come so far to naught. With the black emancipation movement, the women’s movement and that of sexual emancipation, has basic societal discrimination all that much changed ? I think that Joshua gives the clearer reading of some paragraphs in the text, which is indeed not optimistic. I disagree with Joshua about stupidity, in fact the arrogance of stupidity is infinite, vide present regime policies.
“There is no ‘clash of civilizations’. There is a clinically dead civilization kept alive by
Indeed unlike the nation states of yore who could define their boundaries by differences in language and custom, we have now the plattitudes of a mechanized and commercial world culture, fouling up natural resources but filling everyone’s
Reply this comment
Re:
By Spannos, Chris at Jul 27, 2009 21:46 PM
Gui, Below…
>Chris,
>I decided after all to take you up on your challenge:
Okay…
>This to me is a statement of fact. However much you may want an utopian planned reversal of the present chaotic alienation and deprivation, the only way out indeed appear to be catastrophes i.e. intense disruptions, which alone may be capable of breaking the ties that bind us so strongly to 'dispossession'.
It is hard for me to engage in this discussion, where you agree with their quote, because I find this kind of thinking very sad. There are all kinds of terrible consequences and outcomes loaded into this kind of logic and I am at a loss for how to respond - really…At the most basic level it admits and advocates a tremendous amount of human suffering and this is very tragic, not only if it were to ever materialize, if even if it doesn't, that a person or group is willing to concede a level of destruction upon their own fellow human beings and the rest of the earth. I find it very hard to comprehend and I hope you change your mind.
I supposed I have to deal with this now, so let me try. For me, this is like climbing out of a gutter and is what I meant before when I told you their ideas makes me nauseous.
Intense and tragic human suffering will in no way guarantee "breaking the ties that bind us so strongly to 'dispossession'." Wouldn't it be tragic if the Invisible Committee had their destructive wish and no one attempted to create a new social and material order that was better or emancipatory? Human consciousness is not science or chemistry and cannot be affected in the same sense that, say, boiling water can be - there is no boiling point for human consciousness. In other words, there is no point at which material and social conditions can worsen to such a degree that it sets off a chain reaction so that suddenly people become self-conscious agents for positive social and revolutionary transformation. If this were the case than the worlds most destitute places would be breeding grounds for revolutionary activity and struggle. Tragedy does not equal potential revolution - it equals tragedy. Or, on more ludicrous terms "the 'end of civilization!'" as proposed by the Invisible Committee means exactly what it means. Okay, perhaps their statement is just a provocation, and like I said in my review, maybe it is employed for attention getting and shock value. But it doesn't matter. It is stupid to write stuff like this when you are actually advocating massive destruction that is supposed to ignite massive social upheaval and instead will only end in massive human destruction and suffering. The only way to ignite massive social upheaval that will deliver the new society we want, a classless and self-managed participatory society, is to organize and educate, to make social and material gains that empower people and improve their lives, and to develop a shared vision and desire for its realization. The formula offered in TCI is complete and utter nonsense.
>I am with Brecht whose cynicism is truly realistic and devoid from any kind of idealism. The savagery of humankind and threat to what is called euphemistically civilization, are destructive and deplorable but it is reality and will destroy the mocked up simulacra of the surrounding world with which we are now forced to live in these Western nations. No caring soul will rescue us from that fate.
So why even debate it with me? Do you want to organize a bunch of cynics to reinforce your position and make your cynical belief even more likely to come true? If that is what you want, I can think of a hundred different ways that you can speed up the process. Why waste time debating it unless you don't really believe your own words? There are others out there closer to your position than mine. Why waste time with me? I think you're wrong. And my goal however, is to change peoples minds, to offer an alternative, to join with others to offer hope, and to do my part to make sure we get closer to an emancipatory world.
>"The metropolis is this simultaneous death of city and country. It is the crossroads where all the petty bourgeois come together, in the middle of this middle class that stretches out indefinitely, as much a result of rural flight as of urban sprawl. To cover the planet with glass would fit perfectly the cynicism of contemporary architecture. A school, a hospital, or a media center are all variations on the same theme: transparency, neutrality, uniformity. These massive, fluid buildings are conceived without any need to know what they will house."
>Why deny this uniformity of our visual and consequently emotional prison?
Because it is a nearly superfluous paragraph that is overwrought and offers very little insight that can't be found in a much more coherent and useful way in other places, surrounded by more meaningful text. Do you think this and the other quote above that you say you agree with make my review misguided?
>Just look around you, maybe not in Woodshole, but the psychological damage of shopping malls, billboards and housing barracks is tremendous and binds the observer into an artificial universe.
Just because I think the above quote is next to useless does not mean that I don't think the issues you raise are not important. You don't have to convince me of that. In fact I just gave a talk on the subject last May in Athens, Greece that you may be interested in. Here is the link: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/21529
>Just walk the streets of Manhattan with its monotonous grey series of high buildings, one after the other denying diversity and never allowing any self identity of human beings.
Again, you don't have to convince me, try the link to my talk above.
>They do not, they deliberately disform the problem, vide what is happening now with Gates and Sottomayor, both deluders.
Yes, exactly as you say and much worse, as many of the writers that we run also say…. But also no, in that popular culture in music and movies very often portray elites as worse than anything that Leftists would offer in their analysis and many Hollywood movies offer the same kind of apocalyptic scenario that the Invisible Committee wishes upon us, for precisely the same reasons they site in their text, i.e. global warming, insane technological adventures undertaken by elite, etc. Most of this goes unmentioned in Left commentary.
>>"practical effects of their ideas for our potential to change the world, what that world may look like, and the affects their ideas have on our movements".
>That to me is hope fullfilling thinking of the most naïve kind.
Than you must live a difficult daily life seeing only the bad around you and not seeing any of the good in people's daily actions with friends and family and loved ones. Just because those are the lenses you see the world through does not make it so grey for everyone else. Yes, the world is fucked up. In some of my previous lines of work I've had to deal with tremendous amounts of physical, verbal and psychological violence. And I was able to see the horrible problems for what they were but not over exaggerate inevitability or underestimate the kind of societal transformations necessary to alleviate their symptoms and where possible uproot them. If all you see is the problems around you and no way to consciously change them then I would be equally in my right to call you "naïve" for accepting your own blinders. However, rather than try to justify myself to you anymore you may be interested in this other essay I wrote very recently on the social services: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/22027
Likewise, I have also worked in a number of self-organized collectives which apparently fuelled my naiveté in the belief that a classless, self-managing, participatory society is possible. Hurray for real life inspired hope (!)- or what you call naiveté.
>There is no way that we can predict what will come out of this chaos nor have I found on any of these radical web sites any indication of practial formulas or tools to break the bonds. That is why the prediction above of a catastrophic resolution is perfectly reasonable to expect.
Again, through the lenses you see the world though. The lenses I see the world through make catastrophic resolution look insane. As I said to someone else here already, I think it is not only suicidal, but is worse because it is suggesting that onto other people. If you think it is "perfectly reasonable to expect," I believe that kind of destructiveness should rightly be rejected.
>>"I am concerned with the affects of the books ideas on our movements, effects not only in the realm of ideas or words, but how they are put into practice, which myself, friends and comrades have all experienced, and it has been negative to say the least"
>Okay, I can get into that but frankly I do not believe that this book can affect to such an extent.
Perhaps you're right, I certainly don't think it is a good book, as I have pointed out more so than you, who seem to want to defend it from most of my criticism. But it has certainly affected some in France and provided cover for the state to extend its anti-terror measure into 2012. Is that no effect to you? It also affects those organizing and trying to do good work and who are disrupted by people who want to "abolish the assembly." No the book won't make it to Oprah, but it doesn't have to have a negative affect on movements.
>For that it is too little like the bible which is a lot more bloodthirsty and predicts catastrophes so much liked by the ultra-right christers as I believe Vidal calls them.
Wait, but you openly agree with the texts call for catastrophic destruction. Don't you, or am I confused? Please, I hope I am confused…
>>"leftists everywhere continually make their cause more 'visible', they're doing exactly the contrary of what must be done."
>Now here I totally agree with you but I can see where that reasoning comes from and that is what I call European bourgeois humanism, which is blind to particular cases as long as it can keep it's idealist notions safe. This is total nonsense even though they hope in CTI that deprivation will drive people to revolt. But it does not, it demoralizes and poverty never enobles as Rousseau erroneously thought (another one of those pesky French 18th century humanist philosophers).
Wait, again, it seems as if you would reject TCI call for catastrophic destruction. I hope so…
>"To be too strict or too rational is to assume too much authority"
>By this I specifically do not mean either to be less rational or irrational, but both strictness and rationality have been traditionally the purlieu of men (with the myth that women are emotional and soft at heart).
Sure there are traditional stereo types as you mention, but that does not mean that if anyone uses rationale that they are exercising authority. If it meant that this would be an acceptance of the stereotype where if instead of being rational I was emotional someone could say I was being submissive. This too would reinforce the traditional stereotype and makes no sense. So I'm confused about why you even mentioned it in the first place…
>Authority comes with those notions which are hard to shed frankly, even in discussions like these.....think about it.
So you reinforce them by saying I am being rational therefore exercising authority? Sorry, this is something that makes no sense to me. Please correct me if I'm interpreting you wrongly, but you seem to be saying "to be rational is to be sexist." Sure rationalism can be used in bad ways where people can make mistakes and come to wrong conclusions, even sexist conclusions. And sure there are traditional sexist stereo types about men and women and thinking and feeling. But that is very different than simply being rational. Come on…
>My quote of Brecht is explained above. I do not like weak hearted idealists and you probably will fall over this statement too.
Really, what you don't like is your own prerogative, although - just because you do not like something does not mean that you are right. I could just as easily say "I do not like people who wish catastrophic destruction as a substitute for the hard work of organizing and you probably will fall over this statement too." Yet, just because I say it does not mean it is true. What it means is that, assuming your talking about my idealism, that is all you hear and you are not considering any explanation or understanding that I give you, or at least very little is making it through to you and it is enough for you to fall back on whatever your predetermined idea of a "weak hearted idealists" is and anyone who you think fits that description, regardless of what they think themselves, gets put into that box. I think this is your loss, not mine or anyone else you may be referring to. And it is not very productive.
>As for organization which clearly to my mind involves hierarchies because I read Zerzan, it is the division of labor which started us thinking of organizing and planning so that as a result we have in fact become Leibnitzian monads (units functioning in forced isolation) and see again for that Lang's Metropolis, and as good example too are our defunct trade unions where everyone battles his/her own individual struggle.
But this view fails to see the differences between hierarchical and oppressive divisions of labor or balanced and non-oppressive divisions of labor i.e. non-sexist, non-racist, classless and self-managing. I think this is a huge oversight. However, based on all you write below, I can anticipate you will disagree, so I will end it here. Perhaps there is little room for coming closer to any agreement, but by all means if you see something in my above reply where you think we can agree - something of substantial - than we can try. However, I don't see the point at banging away at disagreements and it is getting difficult for me to hold 3 or 4 lengthy conversations with different people…
>The Church and USSR Communism are both bourgeois organizations with humanist intent and hierarchical structures. Now I do not claim to know or understand how organizing for revolution will or can spark it. The spontaneity of the Russian uprising calmed as soon as Lenin cum suis were sent by train through Germany back to Russia, where they took over the reins, ousted the provisional government and regulated and organized the Revolution to death (like Robespierre, shoving the disorderly Girondists out of the way). The path of European history has been a constant 'rappel a l'ordre'. We are living in an Empire of Disorder (Alain Joxe, 2002) and the only change I can imagine is more chaos and the breaking apart of societies, which frankly to me are not such terrible things. I doubt there are alternatives. This is a question of different philosophies between you and me. The pugnaciousness of CTI is born from the idea that careful hard work in building movements have come so far to naught. With the black emancipation movement, the women's movement and that of sexual emancipation, has basic societal discrimination all that much changed ? I think that Joshua gives the clearer reading of some paragraphs in the text, which is indeed not optimistic. I disagree with Joshua about stupidity, in fact the arrogance of stupidity is infinite, vide present regime policies.
"There is no 'clash of civilizations'. There is a clinically dead civilization kept alive by all sorts of life supporting machines that spread a peculiar plague into the planet's atmosphere. Applying the concept of 'security' to everything these days is the expression of a project to securely fasten onto places, behaviors, and even people themselves, an ideal order to which they are no longer ready to accept".
Indeed unlike the nation states of yore who could define their boundaries by differences in language and custom, we have now the plattitudes of a mechanized and commercial world culture, fouling up natural resources but filling everyone's basket (except of course for the colonies) with Wonderbread, half saw dust, half preservatives and a bit of grain. But the delusions must be kept alive that salvation remains a possibility amongst the rubble and that a 'better' world is a reachable ideal (like 'better living through chemistry'...-Dupont). That is a phantom wish that CTI tries to debunk.
Reply this comment
Re: The Coming Insurrection or the Arrival of Suicidal Nonsense?
By Sperber, Joshua at Jul 27, 2009 13:09 PM
I think that the quote Chris uses to demonstrate TCI's alleged misanthropy and abstruseness becomes clearer when it is expanded:
"The destruction of the peasant’s world and of local alimentary practices meant the disappearance of the means for dealing with scarcity. More than the lack of water, it was the effect of the rapidly expanding colonial economy that littered the Tropics with millions of emaciated corpses. What presents itself everywhere as an ecological catastrophe has never stopped being, above all, the manifestation of a disastrous relationship to the world. Inhabiting a nowhere makes us vulnerable to the slightest jolt in the system, to the slightest climactic risk. As the latest tsunami approached and the tourists continued to frolic in the waves, the islands’ hunter-gatherers hastened to flee the coast, following the birds. Environmentalism’s present paradox is that under the pretext of saving the planet from desolation it merely saves the causes of its desolation.
The normal functioning of the world usually serves to hide our state of truly catastrophic dispossession. What is called “catastrophe” is no more than the forced suspension of this state, one of those rare moments when we regain some sort of presence in the world. Let the petroleum reserves run out earlier than expected; let the international flows that regulate the tempo of the metropolis be interrupted, let us suffer some great social disruption and some great “return to savagery of the population,” a “planetary threat,” the “end of civilization!” Either way, any loss of control would be preferable to all the crisis management scenarios they envision. When this comes, the specialists in sustainable development won’t be the ones with the best advice. It’s within the malfunction and short-circuits of the system that we find the elements of a response whose logic would be to abolish the problems themselves."
And, Justin, for background on criticism of organizations, versus organization, you could read http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/ch06.htm and http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/unions.htm
:
Reply this comment
Re:
By McGehee, Michael at Jul 27, 2009 15:25 PM
josh, i could ask how that preceding paragraph makes anything "clearer" or how that shows chris took it out of context, but instead i will inquire into whether or not you feel making it "clearer" results in it being "inseparable from ruling ideology"?
LOL
Reply this comment
Re: Re:
By Sperber, Joshua at Jul 27, 2009 17:04 PM
Mike,
Stupidity is not something one brags about.
"The normal functioning of the world usually serves to hide our state of truly catastrophic dispossession. What is called "catastrophe" is no more than the forced suspension of this state, one of those rare moments when we regain some sort of presence in the world. Let the petroleum reserves run out earlier than expected; let the international flows that regulate the tempo of the metropolis be interrupted, let us suffer some great social disruption and some great "return to savagery of the population," a "planetary threat," the "end of civilization!" Either way, any loss of control would be preferable to all the crisis management scenarios they envision. When this comes, the specialists in sustainable development won't be the ones with the best advice. It's within the malfunction and short-circuits of the system that we find the elements of a response whose logic would be to abolish the problems themselves."
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re:
By McGehee, Michael at Jul 28, 2009 07:33 AM
josh,
calling me stupid, projecting your own intentional misrepresentations into Chris' words and putting a sentence in bold doesnt show how chris took anything out of context.
i got a couple of other questions slightly related - related in that you make no sense.
so you put a question in bold and this is supposed to be what makes everything "clearer" but originally you added the preceding paragraph - but thats not where the sentence you put in bold was. Why? what was the purpose of that preceding paragraph when it was a sentence in another paragraph that you felt had some special meaning?
you attacked Chris' criticism of anonymity because apparently their anonymity is out of necessity, but there has never been a shred of proof to support that. did these writers write something so terribly different from past vanguardists? and do you really think the state couldnt easily identify them if they wanted to - is publishing a book anonymously really ensuring their identities are secret?
and why do you continue to assert that simple language is a tool of the ruling elite? i know you have told me that elites use simple language but the argument is bunk. just because the "enemy" can use something doesnt mean we should disuse it. the "enemy" breaths air and drinks water and eats food, so does that mean we should stop living less we want to be "bourgeois" or "ruling elite"?
you know, if there is any language that is "inseperable from the ruling elite" it is obfuscated language that only those privy to it can understand, ie precisely what you think is satisfactory.
you have never been able to show with any meaningful facts, logic or reason as to why simple language and attention to potential consequences of our actions is undesirable - that is, being overly and painfully conscious of how what we do and what we say helps increase the size and scope of our movements. and that has been the crux of Chris' constructive criticisms that you find so objectionable. this ideological pissing contest that alienates radicals from the general population and those that opt to talk amongst themselves in rhetoric only they understand is a stupid strategy.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re:
By Spannos, Chris at Jul 27, 2009 18:17 PM
Josh, as with perhaps the entire text of TCI, the two paragraphs you quote show our different treatment of their ideas. I have already proposed we agree to disagree. However, in my review, which included over 30 quotes from the book, what I see that characterizes most of the text, including the two paragraphs you quote, fall into the following categories:
(1) Makes little sense
(2) Makes no sense
(3) Makes sense but offers callousness, contempt, or out right destructiveness
Again, this is my opinion. You can disagree. I provide my reasons for my opinion in my review. The quotes you offer in full, I believe, do not help their case any and in fact it is simply more of the same that I reviewed, and does not in any way lessen their call to "let us suffer some great social disruption." Why you want to look over that is beyond me. Similar with the other quote, it does not help their case when they write, "Environmentalism's present paradox is that under the pretext of saving the planet from desolation it merely saves the causes of its desolation." If we were to go through the rest of the text we would find hundreds of statements like this... And it seems to me that, from our exchanges so far, you're either really reading a whole lot into their words, creating meaning that they themselves don't even say, making the meaning your own and no one else's or you're overlooking their destructive tendencies, or you agree with their ideas as they state them and don't see any problem with them. Either way I think this is problematic. For example, if you think their statement, again from one of your quotes, "Environmentalism's present paradox is that under the pretext of saving the planet from desolation it merely saves the causes of its desolation" is not condescending and dismissive of environmentalists, and wrong, than I am in complete disagreement with you. In fact, I think most people can see the problem with writing off an entire movement, which by the way includes third world movements organizing against first world factors contributing to global warming, as well as indigenous environmental groups, labor groups, anti-corporate globalization activists, etc. But that is not the main reason their statement is wrong. It is wrong because it dismisses hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions, all over the world who want fundamental social change because of global warming and the Invisible Committee's blanket condemnation of them simply dismisses them. It seems from The Invisible Committee quotes you provide they would rather "us suffer some great social disruption" than have people collective, consciously, and internationally organize. It is worse then suicidal because they are suggesting it on other people Josh, not just themselves, and anonymously. And I don't care if you think the mean something different. They should not have written anything like that. Again, it is disgusting. If you think there is something there to agree with them about, than I would prefer not to discuss it with you.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re:
By Sperber, Joshua at Jul 27, 2009 20:36 PM
"Again, this is my opinion. You can disagree."
So it's all relative, hurray. What does it imply about your politics that you are so eager to grant permission?
"It is wrong because it dismisses hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions, all over the world who want fundamental social change because of global warming and the Invisible Committee's blanket condemnation of them simply dismisses them"
You're a hyperbolic guy. Anyway, if millions of people indeed want something and are so comprehensively failing to attain it, then perhaps their theoretical assumptions and strategies ought to be condemned.
"Again, it is disgusting. If you think there is something there to agree with them about, than I would prefer not to discuss it with you."
You wrote a book review, which you maintain is based on your "opinion" of something that, to you, mainly "makes no" or "little sense," yet you will not discuss it with someone who doesn't agree with your interpretation? If you knew some Portuguese, and read an essay in which you understood about a third, would you feel comfortable dismissing it in its entirety as "disgusting" and refusing to discuss it with others who disagreed with you? I'm sure the masses will rest well knowing that they have such an erudite and self-aware spokesman.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By Spannos, Chris at Jul 27, 2009 22:07 PM
>So it's all relative, hurray. What does it imply about your politics that you are so eager to grant permission?
No, It is simply not productive to hammer away at differences and I would rather just end this discussion with you than keep going. I have already requested we stop, quit simply it is not productive and also not least because it is starting to get hard to keep up with the 3 or 4 different convo's going on and some are a bit lengthy.
>>"It is wrong because it dismisses hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions, all over the world who want fundamental social change because of global warming and the Invisible Committee's blanket condemnation of them simply dismisses them"
>You're a hyperbolic guy. Anyway, if millions of people indeed want something and are so comprehensively failing to attain it, then perhaps their theoretical assumptions and strategies ought to be condemned
Using your argument based on that found in TCI, which I think is wrong , since you and they want, as you say, "something and are so comprehensively failing to attain it, then perhaps yours and their theoretical assumptions and strategies ought to be condemned." Or can you show me a single success where their strategy has come into existence bearing on what they propose in the book?
>"Again, it is disgusting. If you think there is something there to agree with them about, than I would prefer not to discuss it with you."
>You wrote a book review, which you maintain is based on your "opinion" of something that, to you, mainly "makes no" or "little sense," yet you will not discuss it with someone who doesn't agree with your interpretation?
No, I do not want to discuss a grotesque position with you as you persist not out of desire for real discussion, but out of the enjoyment of trying to push it on me, and I have requested to you now more than once that we simply agree to disagree. The fact that you want to keep hammering away defending their despicable position on the need for catastrophic disaster regardless that I do not is remarkable and says a lot. I think it best just to let it go...
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By Sperber, Joshua at Jul 27, 2009 23:04 PM
"Or can you show me a single success where their strategy has come into existence bearing on what they propose in the book?"
If you want to end the discussion, why do you keep posing questions? Your comparison doesn't work, as my point is that if "millions" (your number, not a dozen) want something and are unable to attain it, then criticism is likely in order.
"No, I do not want to discuss a grotesque position with you as you persist not out of desire for real discussion, but out of the enjoyment of trying to push it on me..."
You don't know my motives, and I'm not trying to push anything on you. And if this is not a "real discussion" that's primarily because you are incapable of examining your own confused assumptions. Take some responsibility for what you write, for god's sake.
"I have already requested we stop, quit simply it is not productive and also not least because it is starting to get hard to keep up with the 3 or 4 different convo's going on and some are a bit lengthy."
But what about Z Net's vaunted unlimited space? Isn't this just what it's for? And what's the problem with being lengthy? Is this a prime time news program that has to cut to commercial? And what's the obsession with "productivity?" Are you a capitalist? Maybe you shouldn't initiate arguments that you are incapable of defending.
Reply this comment
Militant Anarchy
By Casten, J.D. at Jul 26, 2009 22:21 PM
An interesting engagement Chris… I’m reminded of Chomsky’s reaction to most post modernism. Let me caveat that I’ve only given a cursory look at “The Coming Insurrection”—but as you described it, it seems, ironically, all too familiar for me, having read books like “The Dialectic of Enlightenment” or “Anti-Oedipus.”
To see it through your perspective(?): Possibly the critique of organizations is an extension of anarchist tendencies? Like John Zerzan, the authors of “The Coming Insurrection” might say the very structures of institutions dominate human practices, and place people in a technological/tool mediated relationship to the environment and one another, which is a relationship of domination. Hence Parecon, being an “institutional technology,” would be rife with domination. But as you might say, I’m putting words in their mouths. But why would they be against organizing? I think they believe that organizing is a form of domination (as if all types of authority must be questioned… but not one’s own)—what I question is why the authors seem to think, if they do, that decentralized movements (like memes, or spontaneous communal actions) are any less dominating than institutionally organized ones?
They say, “In times like these, the end of centralized revolutions reflects the decentralization of power.” (last or second to last paragraph of “The Coming Insurrection”). Words like that, whether in a heady French intellectual context… or just within the context of the work itself… require interpretation. I believe their writing is acting out their theory— they are not just presenting a theory, they are putting on a performance. Why? I think they might believe it disruptive (possibly you wouldn’t disagree)—and would inspire others with their own interrupted trajectories towards more autonomous thought and action. Possibly they fancy themselves intellectual terrorists, if there could be such.
They go on to say, in the same cited paragraph, “Power is no longer concentrated in one point in the world; it is the world itself, its flows and its avenues, its people and its norms, its codes and its technologies. Power is the organization of the metropolis itself. It is the impeccable totality of the world of the commodity at each of its points. Anyone who defeats it locally sends a planetary shock wave through its networks.”—here they seem to believe in the “Butterfly Effect” more than a robustly resistant interconnected planetary ecology. It took years of pollution to get where we’re at, as far as planetary catastrophe is concerned. Like Nietzsche, they seem to falsely advocate something like the will-to-power in the individual, rather than in the communal.
There, I could easily take these folks as “right-wing anarchists”—for where is the call for “solidarity?” Look no further than “All power to the communes!” But again, why the questioning of organizing institutions, but not of “memes” and “spontaneous communal actions”—why does a “centralized” “overt” “conscious” “explicit” organization have more coercive power than a “decentralized” “covert” “unconscious” “implicit” movement? Better the devil you know, than the one you don’t, right? But there is a difference between the descriptive and the prescriptive; I believe most power is decentralized already too.
I wouldn’t criticize you for your frank and honest engagement with this text… as if you were just too naive to get it (frankly, I think there’s more to provoke there, than to “get”—but that may reflect my own misinterpretation, that I don't get it)—that’s the wrong sort of approach, imo: like “we” have some intellectual power that you don’t. People come from different traditions, often have much to share, and learn from one another… but an attitude of chastisement for “not getting it” because you’re too wrapped up in some sort of indoctrinating system—such implies that the accusers are not themselves shaped by similar, often unconscious, forces: as if they were 100% conscious of all their various determining factors—that just doesn’t cut it. Everyone has their blind sides— besides, education by seduction works so much better, imo, than verbal assault.
I’ll conclude with a quote from Nietzsche: “Have I thereby harmed virtue?— As little as the anarchists harm princes: only since they have been shot at do they sit securely on their thrones again— For thus has it ever been and always will be: one cannot serve a cause better than by persecuting it and hunting it down— This— is what I have done.” – "The Will to Power," 179-180Reply this comment
Re: The Coming Insurrection or the Arrival of Suicidal Nonsense?
By Rochat, Gui at Jul 26, 2009 21:07 PM
Chris, I was not particularly interested in the book because I know from experience the kind of revolutionary fantasies it embraces. But your review made me curious and so I tramped off to St. Mark’s bookstore in the East Village and read it (or at least the most interesting parts of it). A hard headed analysis could easily expose the weaknesses, but there is also some valuable stuff, namely the discussion in the chapter ‘Environment is an Industrial Challenge’, page 73 onward and the one on ‘More Simple, More Fun...’ etc., page 52 onwards. You could say that none of this is very original, but it states the problem. To then dismiss the whole book as you appear to do, is to me at least a bit overhasty and judgmental. What it does not do is prescribe much of a practical solution nor the ultimate goals and that may have distressed you as a Parecon adherent. I myself think and I will quote what Street wrote to me today (and I hope he does not blame me for repeating it), is namely : "For me we can’t skip past the revolution. People can knock themselves out blueprinting the post capitalist society..." etc etc. and frankly that is my position. It is maybe why I am too tolerant of such as TCI because I realize that as a white man (and I have the sneaking suspicion that there were female co-writers in TCI), I have to be open to all kinds of efforts, even the clumsier ones. To be too strict or too rational is to assume too much authority. This script does advocate a worn-out humanist solution, going back as d’Arcy correctly stated to Goethe for one and I would include most of the late 18th century French philosophers. This was very nicely killed by Brecht’s cynical lines:Denn für dieses Leben, Ist der Mensch nicht schlau genug. Niemals merkt er eben Allen Lug und Trug.
And I will do my best in the translation : ‘Thus in this life, the human is not cunning enough. Never does he/she even notice all the lies and the evil goings-on’. You are a bit over reacting, why I do not know stating that the whole TCI affair makes you nauseous, but I suspect it is the outdated bourgeois humanist flavor which you correctly feel is counter revolutionary (see my statement about the Russian revolution). But the whole text is a sort of confessional of thwarted hope, and frankly fully applicable here now too.So please forgive me for not at this late hour quoting texts and I sincerely hope that you will accept this explanation.
Reply this comment
Re:
By Spannos, Chris at Jul 27, 2009 00:46 AM
Gui, below...
>A hard headed analysis could easily expose the weaknesses, but there is also some valuable stuff, namely the discussion in the chapter ‘Environment is an Industrial Challenge', page 73
My review above quotes from this section, I'll quote it for you below too. Perhaps you can let me know what you think? I don't think a "hard headed analysis" is needed to see that their solution is callousness, and that is my opinion. What is yours? Here is the quote again:
"The normal functioning of the world usually serves to hide our state of truly catastrophic dispossession. What is called ‘catastrophe' is no more than the forced suspension of this state, one of those rare moments when we regain some sort of presence in the world. Let the petroleum reserves run out earlier than expected; let the international flows that regulate the tempo of the metropolis be interrupted, let us suffer some great social disruption and some great `return to savagery of the population,' a `planetary threat,' the `end of civilization!'"
>onward and the one on ‘More Simple, More Fun...' etc., page 52 onwards.
I am very curious what you find appealing about this section? Again, my opinion is that very little of it makes sense and the things that are more coherent don't have any point that I can see. Here is one example I provide from my perspective. Perhaps you can provide another quote from your perspective and we can discuss?
"The metropolis is this simultaneous death of city and country. It is the crossroads where all the petty bourgeois come together, in the middle of this middle class that stretches out indefinitely, as much a result of rural flight as of urban sprawl. To cover the planet with glass would fit perfectly the cynicism of contemporary architecture. A school, a hospital, or a media center are all variations on the same theme: transparency, neutrality, uniformity. These massive, fluid buildings are conceived without any need to know what they will house."
I have next to no idea what this means... Could I be the only one? Do the authors? You, I, or anyone else is welcome to insert your own meaning in the above paragraph but how useful is that? Again, maybe you have an alternative quote?
>You could say that none of this is very original, but it states the problem.
We can find TV that states the problem, movies, music, magazines, books, etc. My concern is not with "originality" but practical effects of their ideas for our potential to change the world, what that world may look like, and the affects their ideas have on our movements. As I've made clear, I don't see much of value in their book.
>To then dismiss the whole book as you appear to do, is to me at least a bit overhasty and judgmental.
It certainly would be all those things you say if I simply made up my review or if I did not provide upward towards 60 quotes in my review, certainly over 30 quotes coming directly from their book. But for you or others to then try to defend them without providing a single quote from them is pretty audacious...
>What it does not do is prescribe much of a practical solution nor the ultimate goals
Actually they do and I quote many of their proposals on this and assess their reasoning.
> and that may have distressed you as a Parecon adherent.
If that were the distressing cause then I would be distressed about 98% of the content we run on Z daily, which I personally choose... No, what distresses me is explained, I thought clearly, in the very first two paragraphs of my review. They are just above if you want to refer to them. I am concerned with the affects of the books ideas on our movements, effects not only in the realm of ideas or words, but how they are put into practice, which myself, friends and comrades have all experienced, and it has been negative to say the least. Another concern, again outlined above, is how it serves elite oppression. I'm not going to repeat myself in detail just below the review so you can read it if you want and quote something in it if you have questions.
>I myself think and I will quote what Street wrote to me today (and I hope he does not blame me for repeating it), is namely : "For me we can't skip past the revolution. People can knock themselves out blueprinting the post capitalist society..." etc etc. and frankly that is my position.
Sure, I agree we can't "skip the revolution." But now go try and organize and have people disrupt your assemblies or, if you are working with some oppressed group or are oppressed yourself have them tell you what they write in the book that, "leftists everywhere continually make their cause more ‘visible' -- whether that of the homeless, of women, or of undocumented immigrants -- in hopes that it will get dealt with, they're doing exactly the contrary of what must be done." I reply to this logic above which I think is seriously flawed. You may be interested in the other angles I review too.
>To be too strict or too rational is to assume too much authority.
I admit, I have very little clue as to what this may mean... I will need your clarification because I could interpret it to mean:
(a) To be less rational is to assume less authority, or...
(b) To be irrational is to be an anti authoritarian...
If you believe one or both I could say "your own rational for your argument is authoritarian." I hope you see how I may think this was ridiculous if I thought you were actually saying this, so I'll need your help...
>This script does advocate a worn-out humanist solution, going back as d'Arcy correctly stated to Goethe for one and I would include most of the late 18th century French philosophers.
Really, this is beside the point. I don't remember a single sourced quote in their text and I'm near certain Goethe or any other philosopher is not cited either. But it doesn't matter. Whoever influenced the Invisible Committee's thinking is very far from even secondary to how their theory and practice bears on our movements and its goals? I wish we could focus on that because that is what I think is most important.
> This was very nicely killed by Brecht's cynical lines:Denn für dieses Leben, Ist der Mensch nicht schlau genug. Niemals merkt er eben Allen Lug und Trug.
>And I will do my best in the translation : ‘Thus in this life, the human is not cunning enough. Never does he/she even notice all the lies and the evil goings-on'.
Please, can we focus on our movements and their goals?
>You are a bit over reacting, why I do not know stating that the whole TCI affair makes you nauseous,
It is all in my review. It is getting tiresome to have to repeat it when it is all just above.. You can read my reaction to their reasoning, as well as their strategic and visionary suggestions, to see why I don't have the stomach for it.
> but I suspect it is the outdated bourgeois humanist flavor
No, it is in the review, all of it and it has nothing to do with anything that might be called "outdated bourgeois humanist flavor" whatever that is.
>which you correctly feel is counter revolutionary (see my statement about the Russian revolution).
I don't understand your statement on the Russian Revolution, and was hoping for an answer in my last post to you, although it was asked differently then,responding to something similar you said, but now I'll ask the question again framed for your statement where you said:
"particularly often young radicals who want to change the world with theory, organizations and structure, thereby unwillingly replicating what killed the Russian Revolution."
So, does this mean that you literally think that " theory, organizations and structure... killed the Russian Revolution?" Does that mean that you see no difference between the factory committees, the soviets, or the Bolshevik party? Frankly, I don't want to get stuck in 1917, so I'll just repeat my less time bound question asked last post, "What do you mean by ‘bourgeois organization?' It sounds bad, but again, I can put any meaning to your words. I can think you mean feudal organization, I can think you mean corporate hierarchies in the division of labor in organizations and institutions, or I can think you mean all organization no matter how those inside it try to organize themselves." Please clarify.
>But the whole text is a sort of confessional of thwarted hope, and frankly fully applicable here now too.
It is a call to arms, among other such things that makes no sense in the foreseeable future, and I know the authors disagree with that, hence "The Coming Insurrection," and they also overlook all the hard work that needs to be done that has zero necessity for "having an armed presence" and in fact would only do damage to those trying to build movements and institutions.
>So please forgive me for not at this late hour quoting texts and I sincerely hope that you will accept this explanation.
Honestly, and I know this is a bit pugnacious of me, but I find it odd that you were able to give me Brecht first in German and then translate to English instead of giving me a single quote from the book which is what I want to focus on. That said, I don't expect you have an instant response to my replies, so please get some good night sleep and if you want to further this discussion perhaps provide a few sentences or paragraph whenever you can from the book (no more Goethe or Brecht please ;) and we can try from there. Of course, if you don't want to that is fine too...
Reply this comment
Re: Re:
By Spannos, Chris at Jul 27, 2009 19:36 PM
J.D., Below…
>To see it through your perspective(?): Possibly the critique of organizations is an extension of anarchist tendencies?
I wouldn't put it that way myself. It is just crude reasoning where they see organizations mimicking mini states and assemblies doing likewise with parliaments. It is a rejection of all organization which justifies and conveniently translates to desperate and destructive measures like their call to arms. I can't imagine that very many people involved in the Invisible Committee, if it is more than few people, actually believe what they are writing, although perhaps they do -- there is no real way to tell without being able to exchange opinions and ideas with them. Maybe those that promote the views publicly, for example those at the Barnes and Noble book publicity stunt and covered in the New York Times, like the attention and think what they're doing is fun and cool or something, or maybe they believe that they are part of some avant-garde, perhaps without using those words, and just go along for the ride and don't really think about the consequences of how what they are doing affect social movement. And I'm sure there are those that just like posturing using the rhetoric, and there are probably also others who are nice people and are on the periphery of something they don't fully understand. But -- this is all speculation and that is all it can be while the authors don't publicly claim their ideas or have a public dialogue about them (notice they could do the latter and still remain anonymous).
>Like John Zerzan, the authors of "The Coming Insurrection" might say the very structures of institutions dominate human practices, and place people in a technological/tool mediated relationship to the environment and one another, which is a relationship of domination.
What I quoted in the review and referenced above is about the extent of their rationale I could find in TCI. They have other texts but the way they write is so obscure. I also mention the S.I. influence in my review, but I don't think this is important, although maybe it is how they see themselves as critiquing organizations, movements, and assemblies - as part of their "total critique of everything."
> Hence Parecon, being an "institutional technology," would be rife with domination.
Perhaps, but I'm guessing it would be some variation on the logic they use to condemn organizations and assemblies, but we don't know. Perhaps we will though and they will give a parecon critique a try! Let's wait and see…
>But as you might say, I'm putting words in their mouths.
Well, we're trying to understand their logic. You're not giving your own justification for something that they wrote but that is completely different than what they wrote. You could also try to find their own quotes to understand their logic. I tried to do this in the review but admittedly there was not so much on their critique of organizations and movements. I could not find much and quoted most of what I could find. Again, perhaps there exists more in other texts, but I still think their conclusion is wrong and the consequences destructive.
>But why would they be against organizing? I think they believe that organizing is a form of domination (as if all types of authority must be questioned... but not one's own)-
Perhaps, again we can only know what they tell us, and what they tell us in TCI on these issues is not very much and whatever else there is lends itself pretty loosely to individual interpretation by the reader(s).
>what I question is why the authors seem to think, if they do, that decentralized movements (like memes, or spontaneous communal actions) are any less dominating than institutionally organized ones? They say, "In times like these, the end of centralized revolutions reflects the decentralization of power." (last or second to last paragraph of "The Coming Insurrection").
>Words like that, whether in a heady French intellectual context... or just within the context of the work itself... require interpretation.
Well yes, but if we go on just this statement alone, I'm left thinking, "what could they possibly be saying, there is centralized power all around us, i.e. in wealth, power and privilege, class and decision-making, etc.?" They say the complete opposite of what most serious Leftists see.
>I believe their writing is acting out their theory- they are not just presenting a theory, they are putting on a performance.
It is an odd performance…
>Why? I think they might believe it disruptive (possibly you wouldn't disagree)-and would inspire others with their own interrupted trajectories towards more autonomous thought and action. Possibly they fancy themselves intellectual terrorists, if there could be such.
Well, I don't know, but regardless. Why attack well meaning and effective people on the Left - rather than the centers of power, class rule, political, racial, and gender hierarchy, etc.? Why attack Left organizations where people are trying to organize and do better, and serious people too, who aspire to positive societal revolution?
>They go on to say, in the same cited paragraph, "Power is no longer concentrated in one point in the world; it is the world itself, its flows and its avenues, its people and its norms, its codes and its technologies. Power is the organization of the metropolis itself. It is the impeccable totality of the world of the commodity at each of its points. Anyone who defeats it locally sends a planetary shock wave through its networks."
Ugh…This is where some probably see S.I. influence, and it is so overwrought it is hard to digest.
>-here they seem to believe in the "Butterfly Effect" more than a robustly resistant interconnected planetary ecology. It took years of pollution to get where we're at, as far as planetary catastrophe is concerned. Like Nietzsche, they seem to falsely advocate something like the will-to-power in the individual, rather than in the communal.
I don't know…, although it does seem as if they prefer individual action to collective action, or at least their individual group, but again this is entirely speculation without knowing anything about them…
>There, I could easily take these folks as "right-wing anarchists"-for where is the call for "solidarity?" Look no further than "All power to the communes!" But again, why the questioning of organizing institutions, but not of "memes" and "spontaneous communal actions"-why does a "centralized" "overt" "conscious" "explicit" organization have more coercive power than a "decentralized" "covert" "unconscious" "implicit" movement? Better the devil you know, than the one you don't, right? But there is a difference between the descriptive and the prescriptive; I believe most power is decentralized already too.
One of the problems of their text is that many of their statements are so broad it is hard to come to any understanding with what they give you to go off. For example, where they write "the end of centralized revolutions reflects the decentralization of power" what power? The power over where one works or lives, how they work or live, or what they consume? The vast majority of people are dispossessed of this power - power over their lives. If most people don't have this power themselves, then where does it reside? It resides with managers, bosses, and capitalists - and wealth, power and privileged has become more concentrated in the hands of the few over the many - not less. And it is getting worse in the opening of this century and globally -- not only within countries but between countries. And some genders and ethnicities still have more power over others. This is not the 1950s by any means, but there are still vast discrepancies in power where the many are dispossessed.
>I wouldn't criticize you for your frank and honest engagement with this text... as if you were just too naive to get it (frankly, I think there's more to provoke there, than to "get"-but that may reflect my own misinterpretation, that I don't get it)-that's the wrong sort of approach, imo: like "we" have some intellectual power that you don't. People come from different traditions, often have much to share, and learn from one another... but an attitude of chastisement for "not getting it" because you're too wrapped up in some sort of indoctrinating system-such implies that the accusers are not themselves shaped by similar, often unconscious, forces: as if they were 100% conscious of all their various determining factors-that just doesn't cut it.
Well, said…
Reply this comment
Re: The Coming Insurrection or the Arrival of Suicidal Nonsense?
By Rochat, Gui at Jul 26, 2009 16:50 PM
Steve, you are correct, I penned this too hastily and my comments are not clear. I subscribe to the third paragraph of your comment, that bourgeois society did advance humanistic ideas and that it is a very continental European phenomenon, but certainly not false. And that the text of the TCI tries to express it, maybe clumsily but nevertheless quite deliberately. Of course I would not claim that readers are non-intellectuals, but I wanted to tweak Mr. Spannos a bit with his eager rationalist condemnation of the text and I do think that bourgeois organization will lead to a kind of Stalinism, despite its humanistic value for the writers mentioned (but Adorno did see the danger).
Reply this comment
Re:
By Spannos, Chris at Jul 26, 2009 19:27 PM
Gui, I'm going to respond to your last two comments at once, beginning with your first one...
Who in these exchanges, or in my review for that matter, do you have in mind by "outright condemnation of spontaneity?" I don't want to assume you mean me, because nowhere do I do that nor do I write anything that implies that. But maybe you do? If so could you quote something I have written so I can reply?
Also, perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "Killing the spirit is what over enthusiastic intellectualization does" because I don't understand. Who is the judge of "enthusiastic intellectualization?" Can you give me an example? Of course I can attach all kinds of meaning to your words by guessing what you might be trying to say. But rather than do that I'd like you to explain, if you could, please... you might mean something I very well agree with but it is difficult for me to tell so far.
Your second comment... You write to Steve:
"bourgeois society did advance humanistic ideas and that it is a very continental European phenomenon, but certainly not false. And that the text of the TCI tries to express it, maybe clumsily but nevertheless quite deliberately."
Could you maybe quote something from TCI that gives you this impression or makes you think it is deliberate? Is a single paragraph from the book too much to ask? I don't ask to be condescending (even though you certainly don't mind being condescending to me), but I ask because in my reading of the text none of the thinkers that you or Steve have been mentioning, I don't think, are talked about, quoted, or referenced in their book... Sure there may be a few sentences scattered around the text that you think have been influenced this way and gives you this impression, but this is your impression, and other reviewers mentioned in my review actually point to other influences. But even if it is true, I really don't think this matters a whole lot with TCI -- it is besides the point. In my reading, and perhaps I am wrong, as some people have written to tell me, but I don't think so..., there hardly seems to be even a single coherent paragraph in the whole text. On the contrary, I think it takes a lot of effort to make that little sense and that is why I quote them repeatedly over and over again through the review both responding to clear statements by them and their ambiguities. You may disagree, and you may even prove me wrong, but please, if you think I am wrong, and I am willing to be and would like to be considering this whole TCI affair makes me nauseous, please quote a single paragraph that you think expresses deliberate "humanistic ideas" by the Invisible Committee. I quote "humanistic ideas" because this in-its-self is so broad and general an idea it would require some refining to know what we're looking for in the text by way of authors, quotes, references, etc., don't you think? But regardless, even if you find one paragraph that you think is an example, you would have to find many for me to reconsider my "eager rationalist condemnation of the text." Which is actually an insulting statement from you, not because I mind trying to be rational, because I do strive to be, (why would you think that is bad?) but because you don't quote me anywhere as an example and I haven't dared to say that you have an "irrational defense" of the text. Although so far I do not understand many of your statements, for example, you "think that bourgeois organization will lead to a kind of Stalinism." What do you mean by "bourgeois organization?" It sounds bad, but again, I can put any meaning to your words. I can think you mean feudal organization, I can think you mean corporate hierarchies in the division of labor in organizations and institutions, or I can think you mean all organization no matter how those inside it try to organize themselves. I would need your clarification to understand and I would not try to insert my own meaning into your words.
The thing that "tweaks" me is TCI, for all the reasons I mention in the review, and if it doesn't tweak you too then what exactly don't you like about the review? Where do you think it goes wrong or overboard? Please, something more than "l'intellectualisme, assassin de nos esprits !" If you want to discuss this, please quote something I wrote or they wrote as an example so we can actually respond to one another rather than discussing things you think I or they may mean but that they or I have not actually written.
Similarly, I have another problem with people who have written me trying to defend TCI in varying degrees. I'm not saying this exactly includes you for the same reasons it does them, but you do seem "tweaked" by my review, although I'm not sure which way, and there may be a similar problem at the root of it. People have written me with their own interpretation of what TCI is saying without ever using or quoting the authors' own words. Many have written me inserting their own meaning into the authors, and, admittedly, a great deal of the book is written in a way that lends itself to this, seemingly deliberately. Those that defend the text tell me that the authors do this to leave space for imagination and positive interpretation. Some have even accused me of not having any imagination myself because of my review. The catch is, who knows what the authors of TCI mean by their vague open statements that could mean anything and nothing at the same time? They would have to clarify themselves to be sure. But perhaps they write ambiguously intentionally and so we can only respond to each others separate interpretation so either everyone is either right or everyone is wrong, or we can all spend time discussing it trying to figure out what they might mean and trying to come to some useful conclusion while it would have been more productive from the very beginning for the authors just to write exactly what they mean. Okay, even if we assume that the authors are intentionally ambiguous for reasons they believe are positive, which I would disagree with, what about where the authors are clear, deliberate, and cannot be misunderstood? For example, where they write things that dismiss universally all organization, including Left organization -- which means anarchist, queer, and immigrant organization, and write "organizations mimic mini states" and "assemblies suffer the bad example of bourgeois parliaments?" They are being clear here and it would be very difficult to misunderstand them. It is very odd that people seem to want to overlook this while at the same time try to find good in their ambiguities throughout the rest of the text. Where they are unambiguous is their call to take up arms, learn wartime agronomics and plankton biology (yes, plankton biology...), set bones, fight, etc. All this is in their text. Am I being overly "eagerly rationalist" here? I actually hope so as I think it is an appropriate response to their, what I would call, suicidal tendencies. I wonder what you think of these statements of theirs. Or, is the rest of the text so insightful in their critique of contemporary society and culture that we can overlook these destructive words of theirs? Or, should we read these words of theirs, where they give deliberate meaning, and equally, as with the rest of the text, just make up our own interpretation of them? You know what I think, spelled out in my review.
Reply this comment
Re: The Coming Insurrection or the Arrival of Suicidal Nonsense?
By Rochat, Gui at Jul 26, 2009 12:03 PM
Voila ! Exactly what I meant with 'l'intellectualisme', ‘l’assassin’ I would say now, 'de nos espoirs' (and I will translate this for those of us who are not francophone and write ‘le Mond’ twice instead of ‘le Monde’ - easy to check though on the Internet – ‘highbrows are the murderers of our spirit’ or like here quoted, ‘of our hopes’). What lies at the base of Adorno, Marcuse and especially Goodman is their humanism, a trait bred out of bourgeois society and particularly often young radicals who want to change the world with theory, organizations and structure, thereby unwillingly replicating what killed the Russian Revolution. D’Arcy is wise enough to admit that the book has some serious faults, but outright condemnation of spontaneity, however misinformed it may be intellectually is exactly what the French students fought against in 1968. Killing the spirit is what over enthusiastic intellectualization does, however well intended and what makes one despair of ever reaching change inAmerica
Reply this comment
Re:
By D'Arcy, Steve at Jul 26, 2009 15:25 PM
Gui,
I'm afraid I don't quite understand your comment (and not because of the French phrases). Are you saying that humanism is "bred out of bougeois society" in the sense that, by some process of (metaphorical) "breeding," it is eliminated from bourgeois society (which doesn't seem plausible, given the modern history of humanism)? Or are you saying that what (metaphorically) breeds humanism is something internal to bourgeois society, out of which humanism emerges (which also seems implausible, given that humanism arose before bourgeois society came into existence)? Also, are you saying that we ought to be more humanistic, like Adorno, Marcuse and Goodman, and also (?) like the students in 1968? Or are you saying that humanism is bourgeois, and that it leads to Stalinism because it encourages organization, etc.?
I have tried to read your comment over and over and I can't figure out which (if any) of these points you are trying to express.
In any case, it is clear that the authors of The Coming Insurrection opt for an ultra-humanistic stance, urging us to seek out "authenticity," "commitment," "spontaneity," a de-regimented existence, and an intensity of experience. It is a kind of fusion of Goethe and the early Heidegger. As you may or may not be trying to say, this places the text right in the mainstream of bourgeois ideology (albeit not so much its Anglo-American strand). But that doesn't mean that it is false. Sometimes bourgeois ideology gets it right. For instance, the idea that legitimacy is function of consent is also right in the mainstream of bourgeois ideology, but I find it no less compelling for that reason. (The many claims in The Coming Insurrection that are false are false for other reasons, not simply because they are typical of bourgeois ideology.)
I'm also not sure if you are claiming -- and this would be the ultimate in implausibility -- that the authors, or the sympathizers, of The Coming Insurrection are non-intellectuals. I freely admit to being an intellectual. But so should anyone who even takes a serious interest in The Coming Insurrection. And so should anyone who even takes a position one way or the other on the impact of humanism on the fate of the Russian Revolution.
Reply this comment
Re: The Coming Insurrection or the Arrival of Suicidal Nonsense?
By Agnostic, Justin at Jul 26, 2009 10:26 AM
Joshua,
Could you write a review of this work, The Coming Insurrection? I think I would find it useful. From reading Chris's review and your and his various replys I have the expectation of finding in the book a clustering of critiques some insightful and some incoherent. For example, I have shared, probably in a more latent way, the critique of social networking sites, facebook myspace the like, as being a reflection of branding this period of capitalist culture. But I also share Chris and Steve's concern with a theorectical basis for rejection of movement organizing for a instead for bands of isolated guerrilla units a la the Weathermen or something of similar theory and practice.
However, from your posts below it seems to be suggested that in this work there is a theoretical claim made that in this historic moment attempts at movement building should be renounced for smaller guerrilla action, because the larger social movement organizations are doomed to reify the current power structure. If this is the case, and that theoretical claim is made with argument and example I would like to hear it. And perhaps I could use your thoughts as a primer prior to reading the work myself.
Justin
Reply this comment
Anti-intellectualism
By Sperber, Joshua at Jul 25, 2009 15:48 PM
Did you read the book, Steve D'Arcy? I ask because Chris Spannos' article is anything but "thorough." It's less a critique, in fact, than a series of ad hominems apparently inspired by a turf war justification of the ideology of "organizing" -- which intersects with Spannos' rejection of anonymity, belying any awareness on his part that individual authorship is a bourgeois construct. Moreover, the tendency of purported "revolutionaries" to describe what they are unfamiliar with (i.e. anonymous authorship) -- though they should be -- as "odd" betrays a conservative ignorance that should not be a point of pride.
The putative authors indeed endured state persecution, undermining Spannos' declaration that they should not have remained anonymous and instead taken "responsibility for their ideas." Just as preposterous is the unseen irony in Spannos' suggestion that if poor white women wrote the book then their anonymity would be ruled more acceptable than if it were written by middle class white males, all neatly decreed by white male Spannos. Spannos writes "The authors seem to -- wrongly -- think that not shedding light on issues of racism or sexism is what must be done," committing one of many straw-man distortions of the Invisible Committee's argument. Spannos conflates "awareness" of social issues with the (pursuit of) fame (by) of individual activists, insisting that whether one is anonymous, "it is wrong to be judgmental either way." Yet it is not "wrong" to unilaterally rule on what other leftists may and may not critique.
Spannos goes on to hyperbolically assert that any rejection of nominally anti-sexist, anti-racist, "classless" organizations is an "embrace" of their opposites. But are there not a thousand communist and socialist organizations that describe themselves in these terms? And so does this mean that rejecting, say, the ISO, condemns one to life as a sexist/racist/classist? Even the ISO wouldn't make such a claim!
Spannos feels attacked by the writers, so he holds them responsible for an escalation of state "anti-terrorist" terrorism threatening all the left, jettisoning his advocacy of "responsibility" by not examining state violence and literally blaming its victims. If we only behave, they'll have no excuse to oppress us! What a revolutionary. He further notes, "Leaving aside the senselessness of certain forms of sabotage as a means of building activist movements..." completing missing the point that the writers premise their argument on a rejection of "building activist movements." Spannos is incapable of following the writers' own logic and cannot provide a consistent and coherent critique, rarely straying from the realm of his own dubious premises -- many of which are the very subjects of the Invisible Committee's analysis.
In true liberal fashion, Spannos complains "Even beyond dismissiveness toward other activists, there is a blatant callousness toward working people. The introduction declares, 'To tell the truth, the disastrous unemployment figures no longer provoke any feeling in us.' (Pg. 7) So the authors should not be surprised if the mass of unemployed have no feelings for them or remain indifferent to, or even become hostile to, the authors' ideas." While the book is offering a critique of the problematic and depressing strategy of advocating for greater opportunities for wage slavery, and Spannos is oblivious to the use of the paradoxical and revealing adjective "disastrous," Spannos is so presumptuous as to actually speak for and anticipate the reaction (as if it’s homogenous!) of the world's "unemployed," which is far more patronizing than anything the I.C. proposes.
Spannos does not understand that repeatedly labeling something "nonsense," "foolish," "destructive," and "absurd," and asking "Are they serious?" is not a critique. He admits that he doesn't understand much of the material, so he instead fires away, dismissing the work in its entirety. It would be hard to think of a more juvenile, and self-incriminating, approach to criticism. Spannos betrays himself writing "It's as if their (sic) making it up as they go along." Yes, they're trying to apply an informed analysis, i.e. think, which I'll take any day over Spannos' vapid sloganeering.
Insofar as Spannos' "I'm too much of a regular guy to understand nuance" anti-intellectual reflexive rejection of the book's treatment of political violence, here he reveals himself, not the writers, as the ideologue, as the latter are informed by human history concerning revolution, counterrevolution, and violence. Spannos demonstrates almost no historical or theoretical grasp of the matter at hand, so his snide insults and feigned confusion (let's hope it's feigned) at the mere mention of the word "violence" carries no weight whatsoever.
What is most striking in Spannos' article is that he in no way addresses 'The Coming Insurrection's' analysis. He is hot and bothered by strategies and tactics, but never conveys an understanding of the political-social-historical terrain on which they are to occur. Accordingly, he ignores the best parts of the book, which are perspicacious descriptions of not only present day capitalism, but also its interaction with present day consciousness. There are some insights here, including a discussion of current forms of capitalist commodification and internalization, relating to the personal-branding/marketing embodied in, for example, Facebook accounts, which of course are a model for Z. Networking sites tell us to market our faces and selves, hawking either personality, music, or "our ideas," turning our own personhood into capitalism in miniature. This is an important and potentially fruitful discussion, but Spannos prefers that we instead spend our time viewing his ZSpace photo of a "serious" "revolutionary."
Reply this comment
Re: Anti-intellectualism
By Ward, Peter at Jul 25, 2009 18:29 PM
If Chris in an anti-intellectual then hooray for anti-intellectuals. Furthermore, the contempt the authors of the book show for just about everyone is reason enough to give it no more respect than a malarial misquito, apart from the monumental intellectual fraud that is being perpitrated.
Reply this comment
Re: Anti-intellectualism
By Spannos, Chris at Jul 25, 2009 19:10 PM
Joshua,
What is the "the ideology of 'organizing'"?
The Invisible Committee writes that all organizations "mimic mini states" and "assemblies suffer the bad example of bourgeois parliaments." This includes anarchist, anti-authoritarian, feminist, and anti racist organizations. Doesn't it? All this is in the above review. Is there any context in which you think this makes sense? If so than we will have to agree to disagree.
Why do you say I reject anonymity when the article, again just above, says over and over again that anonymity can be understood and respect if people need to use it, say out of threat of deportation or some other danger. I also say that anonymity does not lessen heroism. But I respond to the Invisible Committee's argument for their own anonymity which opens with a direct assault on Leftists which include women, workers, immigrants and others. And after quoting them I try to provide an assessment of their reasoning which I think has serious gaps.
You write:
"Just as preposterous is the unseen irony in Spannos' suggestion that if poor white women wrote the book then their anonymity would be ruled more acceptable than if it were written by middle class white males, all neatly decreed by white male Spannos"
Actually, I never say or suggest anything about "poor white women" or what you think I may mean. Instead, I do say about anonymity, to be judgmental either way is wrong and I think their text is judgmental on this point. Again, please read the review more carefully.
You say the authors of The Coming Insurrection "endured state persecution." Actually, they were all let go because of lack of evidence linking them to either the act of sabotage they were accused of or the book. One of the accused, as you probably know, Julien Coupat was asked in a Le Mond interview last May if he authored the book and he doesn't admit it nor deny it, yet he is very sympathetic to its ideas. The book was out in France since 2007, long before the events last November. In the Le Mond interview Coupat says "At the moment of our arrest, the French police were already in possession of the communiqué that claimed, in addition to the acts of sabotage that they want to attribute to us, other simultaneous attacks in Germany." In the review, I assume that the accused were innocent and in fact they were all released. Why I have to repeat this again, just beneath the article is very frustrating...
I used the example of the Tarnac 9 to explore the validity of their argument that the Invisible Committee were concerned with "maximum freedom of action" while remaining anonymous. Initially, according to the Tarnac 9 support site, 20 people were arrested. In the text just above I look at how their "invisibility" has affected the freedom of others. You don't have to like my conclusion. That is fine. But I also point out how their invisibility can work against them in negative ways that even they should not desire upon themselves and again, I think, this points to holes in their logic. All is in the above article.
I could go on responding to everyhthing you write but, I can see clearly disagree on many things and all of what I have to say is in the above article. I do have a question for you though. You say that I "no way address 'The Coming Insurrection's' analysis." That is because I think most of it is incomprehensible and my reasons for this should be apparent in the quotes from them that I provide. Sure there may be the occasional sentiment I agree with, but these sentiments can be found in many other places and in analysis that I think sheds more light on our social and material problems and is more useful. Fine, you don't have to agree. And you can like the Invisible Committee's analyses for all the same reasons I like the others, and I don't have to agree with you. Okay. But, aside from those parts of the text where you find insightful and engaging, and perhaps you think are well written, I want to know what you think of their statements in the book like this, again quoted in my review above:
"The normal functioning of the world usually serves to hide our state of truly catastrophic dispossession. What is called 'catastrophe' is no more than the forced suspension of this state, one of those rare moments when we regain some sort of presence in the world. Let the petroleum reserves run out earlier than expected; let the international flows that regulate the tempo of the metropolis be interrupted, let us suffer some great social disruption and some great `return to savagery of the population,' a `planetary threat,' the `end of civilization!'" (Pg. 54)
Did I confuse these words? I don't think so. In my mind, the above kind of reasoning is indefensible, as are their ideas for rejecting organizations and assemblies. Okay, maybe you think I am taking their words too literally and you don't think they mean what they are writing. Then why would they write it in the first place?
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Anti-intellectualism
By Sperber, Joshua at Jul 25, 2009 21:05 PM
The ideology of organizing involves the presupposition that organizing is more practical and less ideological than theory, without recognizing that this assumption itself is inseparable from specific historical ideologies.
“The Invisible Committee writes that all organizations "mimic mini states" and "assemblies suffer the bad example of bourgeois parliaments." This includes anarchist, anti-authoritarian, feminist, and anti racist organizations. Doesn't it? All this is in the above review. Is there any context in which you think this makes sense? If so than we will have to agree to disagree.”
Well, on an objective material level, there’s bound to be mimicry if for no other reason that organizations inhabit political-social-economic space maintained by the state. We all live in states, and we’re not presently separable from them, suggesting that any “revolutionary” organization that isn’t ultimately self-negating is dubious.
"Why do you say I reject anonymity when the article, again just above, says over and over again that anonymity can be understood and respect if people need to use it, say out of threat of deportation or some other danger. I also say that anonymity does not lessen heroism. But I respond to the Invisible Committee's argument for their own anonymity which opens with a direct assault on Leftists which include women, workers, immigrants and others. And after quoting them I try to provide an assessment of their reasoning which I think has serious gaps.”
Because your acceptance is conditional and so serves here as a rejection, notwithstanding your historically specific assumptions regarding authorship.
"Actually, I never say or suggest anything about "poor white women" or what you think I may mean. Instead, I do say about anonymity, to be judgmental either way is wrong and I think their text is judgmental on this point. Again, please read the review more carefully.”
My contention is with your unilateral and specific allocation of privilege-stratified conventions governing particular publishing practices, and I used a hypothetical to illustrate this.
“You say the authors of The Coming Insurrection "endured state persecution." Actually, they were all let go because of lack of evidence linking them to either the act of sabotage they were accused of or the book.”
They were arrested and harassed. And if they were “innocent,” the “perpetrators” have no doubt faced the heat. That’s not persecution?
“Okay. But, aside from those parts of the text where you find insightful and engaging, and perhaps you think are well written, I want to know what you think of their statements in the book like this, again quoted in my review above:
"The normal functioning of the world usually serves to hide our state of truly catastrophic dispossession. What is called 'catastrophe' is no more than the forced suspension of this state, one of those rare moments when we regain some sort of presence in the world. Let the petroleum reserves run out earlier than expected; let the international flows that regulate the tempo of the metropolis be interrupted, let us suffer some great social disruption and some great `return to savagery of the population,' a `planetary threat,' the `end of civilization!'" (Pg. 54)
Did I confuse these words? I don't think so. In my mind, the above kind of reasoning is indefensible, as are their ideas for rejecting organizations and assemblies. Okay, maybe you think I am taking their words too literally and you don't think they mean what they are writing. Then why would they write it in the first place?”
I find this neither particularly ambiguous nor problematic. They merely seem to be calling attention to the fact that state ideology includes a perpetual threat that ‘it could be worse.’ Given the intensity of current crises and their effects on much of the world, this appears to call the bluff of this threat and its attending promise that we need the state to protect us. “Bring it on” suggests a strong faith in humanity’s self-reliance and maturity, if anything.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Anti-intellectualism
By Spannos, Chris at Jul 26, 2009 01:32 AM
Joshua,
I don't see don't any hierarchy between theory and practice and think both are equally important, so I'm not sure why you introduce this "ideology of organizing" stuff.
I should say, as I've told others who have defended TCI, that you are very generous, adding meaning to their words where they are not so clear - yet I still fundamentally disagree. If, as you say, "there's bound to be mimicry if for no other reason that organizations inhabit political-social-economic space maintained by the state" than that would actually mean that there is no point to trying to organize in an egalitarian, classless, non-sexist, non-racist way. Or is there? I think there is. Is this why you arrive at your conclusion that "any 'revolutionary' organization that isn't ultimately self-negating is dubious." If so, I disagree. Well, I disagree with the statement anyway. But, if this was true then there would be no escape or solution to the society we live in other than complete or near destruction (dramatic I know, but I think this is the logic). Indeed, TCI echoes tones of this and I hope you disagree with them here. If not, we do not have to continue on this point. We can agree to disagree.
You, again very generously, agree to a positive interpretation of the quote I provided from them about their willingness to see a "great `return to savagery of the population,' a `planetary threat,' the `end of civilization!'" and you claim that you:
"find this neither particularly ambiguous nor problematic. They merely seem to be calling attention to the fact that state ideology includes a perpetual threat that 'it could be worse.' Given the intensity of current crises and their effects on much of the world, this appears to call the bluff of this threat and its attending promise that we need the state to protect us. 'Bring it on' suggests a strong faith in humanity's self-reliance and maturity, if anything."
If this is what you think they mean, which I disagree with, why do you think they didn't just write that in the first place? Again, I think you're being way too generous. I am not so generous and think it is important to be deliberate about what we're trying to communicate. What they actually write, whether they mean it or not, is disgusting. If you want to talk more about that, why you think they don't write what they mean, or say instead what you think, then I am game. But, as is obvious, I am highly skeptical of their approach. And if we further clarify disagreements that is fine but I'm not sure how productive. In fact, this is why I'm only responding to a few of your comments because it is clear we are seeing past each other and I am not sure how much you think we may be able to change each other's minds. That said, I am willing to discuss more if you think there are other areas of exploration bearing on the review.
Reply this comment
Re: Anti-intellectualism
By D'Arcy, Steve at Jul 25, 2009 20:31 PM
Joshua,
It may be true to say (although unfortunately you do not limit yourself to saying this) that The Coming Insurrection contains (in its first 2/3) an elaborate diagnostic culture critique, of the 'pessimistic' type, which (arguably) offers some useful insights about contemporary life. That would be one thing. But to seriously suggest that the political project/strategy that they delineate in the final 1/3 of the text offers anything useful to anti-capitalist organizers, or for that matter feminsts, anti-racists, trade unionists (who they seem especially to despise), etc., would be absurd.
The pessimistic culture critique that they offer is not worthless, I concede. But it is not necessarily original either. We should ask ourselves how much of it remains if you subtract everything that is readily found in Horkheimer and Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment, Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man, the old SDS's Port Huron Statement, Paul Goodman's Growing Up Absurd, Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle, and even (to insert a relevant but perhaps unexpected name) Martin Heidegger's Nietzsche Lectures, along with countless others who have contributed to this well-explored and widely-read genre over the years. (No doubt you regard 'originality' as a 'bourgeois construct.' But that's beside the point: the question is, what does the text in question have to contribute?)
The strategic part, in the final 1/3 of the text, is actually outrageous: attacks not only on formal organizations as such (which is a theme explored much more fruitfully by Piven and Cloward in Poor People's Movements), but specifically things like unions, activist assemblies, and so on; the celebration of acts of petty vandalism, such as burning cars or sabotaging public infrastructure, as if this could be the basis for a serious strategy for fighting social injustice; a brazen contempt for anything that smacks of democracy, above all if it is expressed in an activist organization or assembly; and an insulting and groundless hostility to anyone who decides that she has to work at a job in order to support herself or her family.
The idea that any of this represents some profound insight into the way forward for radical politics is quite clearly absurd. If people were to take it seriously, it would be disastrous for the Left, and a huge victory for the forces of Law and Order, always seeking a pretext to criminalize the struggles of exploited and oppressed people.
Culture critique has its place, especially among intellectuals, who seem to enjoy it for whatever reason. But let's not confuse it with serious contributions to political strategy. (The same applies to Marcuse, Adorno, et al.)
Again, I think the review (which admittedly focuses on the political project/strategy, not the culture critique), is exactly right in its approach: the project of the 'invisible committee' has to be rejected by the Left, and a real, productive conversation about strategies for building movements has to be fostered instead.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Anti-intellectualism
By Sperber, Joshua at Jul 26, 2009 01:57 AM
I agree, Steve, that the work does not necessarily 'pave new theoretical ground,' as academics like to say, but I think its relevance is in the sensitivity of its application of theory to current conditions.
And what I find absurd is the abject ahistoricality of leftists who do not know or haven't bothered to learn that violence has always played a role in liberation from the monopolizers of violence.
Reply this comment
Re: The Coming Insurrection or the Arrival of Suicidal Nonsense?
By D'Arcy, Steve at Jul 24, 2009 23:34 PM
A very throrough critique! I think you do a very good, comprehensive job of debunking this ill-considered and ill-fated political project/fiasco.
But, unfortunately, this set of politics -- setting aside particularities and idiosyncrasies, whether 'situationist' in inspiration or not -- is best understood as part of a far more widespread, pervasive tendency in left-wing politics: the tendency to seek minoritarian substitutes for mass action in the face of decling levels of popular struggle (or declining successes of mass struggle, as might better describe the situation in France). So, when the masses 'disappoint' highly motivated, but also isolated activists, there is a tendency to imagine that there might be an alternative to mass mobilization from below, and the disappointed activist may dream of some heroic savior(s): a band of guerrillas, a terrorist group, a charismatic politician, a 'black bloc,' or even the military might of a foreign government. Disappointed leftists lacking hope about mass movement-building have been very (tragically) inventive in the range of panaceas that they have been willing to imagine.
But, as your article rightly insists: there is no alternative to mass movement-building, however difficult it may be or however long-range our commitment to it must become.
Reply this comment
Re:
By Spannos, Chris at Jul 25, 2009 14:49 PM
Steve, I agree with what you say. It is a very thoughtful observation. And it is sad that our movements are not yet able enough to inspire wide spread hope for deeply rooted revolution aiming for classlessness, solidarity, self-management, etc. It is sad to see others act out of such desperation as well as suffer the consequences. When we finally inspire such hope -- and we will -- solidarity and hope should replace desperation and isolation and we can begin to make headway. For now, onward and forward...
Reply this comment
By Rochat, Gui at Jul 24, 2009 14:16 PM
Ah, l’intellectualisme, assassin de nos esprits !
Reply this comment
Good review, crap book
By Brud, Eugene at Dec 31, 1969 23:59 PM
Chris's review was spot on. The style of TCI is indeed not user-friendly. Calling its critique of modern society overwrought is an understatement.
"The self is not some thing within us that is in a state of crisis; it is the form they mean to stamp upon us. They want to make our self something sharply defined, separate, assessable in terms of qualities, controllable, when in fact we are creatures among creatures, singularities among similars, living flesh weaving the flesh of the world." (p. 8)
Why talk like this? Sensible, readable critiques of modern society are found everywhere, but importantly, as Chris mentioned in a comment somewhere below, they are all over popular culture, from Iron Man to Harold and Kumar (http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3500).
And did they really just tell me to embrace a "return to savagery"? Geez.
The reason the NY Times and Fox News pay any attention to TCI isn't because it's particularly threatening to elites (it's not). If TCI really had strong arguments and laid out a sensible program for winning gains and a new, classless society, it wouldn't be given the time of day. But of course, TCI has none of that, so it can be used to paint the Left in general as utterly absurd and opposed to the interests of ordinary people. It's already done more than enough damage, so this review is more than welcome.
Reply this comment